iinvj.'wm 


BX  5098  . H8  1923 
Hunter,  Aylmer  Douglas  T. 
England's  reawakening 


* 


ENGLAND’S 

REAWAKENING 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/englandsreawakenOOhunt 


A  few  \ words  on  the  history  of  Anglo - 
Catholicism ,  and  its  attitude  to¬ 
wards  the  prospect  of  a  future  reunion 


BY 

AYLMER  HUNTER 

( M.A .  Oxon,  Baryister-at-Law,  Innev  Temple) 


PREFACE  BY 

His  Grace  The  Duke  of  Argyll 


NEW  YORK  : 

E.  P.  DUTTON  AND  COMPANY, 
681  FIFTH  AVENUE. 


PREFACE 


The  author  of  this  work  has  asked  me  to  say 
a  few  words  in  preface  to  it.  I  had  the  pleasure 
of  reading  it  before  I  left  London,  and  it  struck 
me  that  it  might  be  of  more  than  passing 
interest  to  many  who,  whatever  their  chief 
interests  in  life  may  be,  are  probably  interested 
in  what  is  one  of  the  subjects  of  the  day — the 
Anglo-Catholic  Movement,  which,  whilst  it 
has  received  such  an  impetus  from  the  con¬ 
ditions  left  by  the  Great  War,  is  but  the 
orderly  and  perfectly  natural  development  of 
that  wonderful  awakening  of  the  Church 
which  the  Oxford  Movement  of  the  early  part 
of  Victoria’s  reign  initiated,  no  little  of  whose 
strength  is  now  to  be  found  in  the  sister 
University  of  Cambridge. 

At  the  time  of  the  death  of  the  last  Arch¬ 
bishop  of  Cologne  (Cardinal  Hartman),  the 
Cologne  Post ,  in  a  fine  passage,  pointed  out 
how  “  the  great  Sees  of  Western  Christendom 
are  to-day  our  closest  and  most  living  link  with 


6 


PREFACE 


the  past  that  made  Europe  and  made  us. 
Dynasties  have  risen  and  fallen,  three  empires 
crumbled  before  our  eyes  but  as  yesterday,  but 
the  dynasties  of  the  bishops  of  Europe  con¬ 
tinue.  This  is  no  time  for  commonplaces  on 
the  newness,  the  modernity,  of  kings  compared 
to  the  majestic  line  of  the  bishops  of  Rome,  but 
it  is  well  to  remember  that  all  up  and  down 
Western  Europe  such  lines  so  deeply  rooted 
in  the  past  of  men  survive  and  bind  us  with 
our  forefathers.” 

It  is  increasingly  felt  by  many  that  one  of 
the  chief  agents  in  the  pacification  of  the 
bickering  nationalisms  of  Europe  should  be  the 
Catholic  Church,  and  that  this  result  will  be 
immensely  hastened  when  the  divisions  between 
the  Eastern  and  Western  Patriarchates,  and 
our  own  separation  from  the  Western  Church, 
shall  have  been  healed  or,  at  the  least,  so 
modified  that  intercommunion  will  be  ren¬ 
dered  once  more  possible.  For  whatever 
future  may  be  in  store  for  the  ancient 
Patriarchate  of  the  East  and  the  other  auto¬ 
cephalous  Churches  linked  closely  or  loosely 
to  it  (after  the  present  period  of  its  atrocious 


PREFACE 


7 


and  despicable  persecution  in  Russia  is  over) 
it  is  impossible  not  to  see  how  far  more  firmly 
the  Patriarchate  of  the  West  under  the  bishops 
of  Rome  interpenetrates  the  various  nation¬ 
alities  in  her  obedience,  whilst  in  others,  such 
as  Holland,  she  (owing  to  the  existence  of 
Modernism,  a  general  loosening  of  doctrinal 
standards  and  actual  unbelief  amongst  Cal¬ 
vinists  and  Lutherans),  is  recovering  her  once- 
lost  ground  in  a  manner  which  a  century  ago 
would  have  seemed  impossible. 

Seekers  after  some  supra-national  authority 
have,  according  to  their  mental  bias,  turned 
to  a  League  of  Nations,  or  to  an  international 
communistic  nightmare  such  as  has  led  to  the 
undoing  of  Russia,  whilst  all  the  time  at  their 
very  elbow  lies  that  vast  organisation,  the 
Catholic  Church,  with  its  roots  like  the  Ash 
Ygdrasil  of  Norse  mythology,  striking  deep 
into  the  pasts  of  every  Western  race  in  pos¬ 
session  of  all  those  historic  sanctions  which 
no  new-born  League  can  be  possessed  of.  For 
no  one,  not  even  the  most  temerarious,  should 
presume  to  lay  aside  the  experience,  as  stored 
up  through  the  centuries,  of  the  Church. 


8 


PREFACE 


The  Rev.  E.  M.  Milner-White,  of  King’s 
College,  Cambridge,  in  his  excellent  paper  on 
Christian  Unity  in  the  Report  of  the  First 
Anglo-Catholic  Congress,  1920,  has  pointed  out 
that  “  unity  ”  is  a  deeper  and  a  different  matter, 
“  and  is  not  the  same  thing  as  reunion  or  inter¬ 
communion.” 

He  points  out  the  fact  of  a  deep  underlying, 
actually  existing  unity  between  Rome  and 
Canterbury  now ,  which  is  so  dangerously  under¬ 
estimated  and  misunderstood,  that  he  wants  to 
emphasise  it.  “  For  it  is  a  living  power  which 
has  survived  the  starvation  and  isolation  of 
three  centuries,  and  daily  grows  stronger.” 
First,  as  he  points  out,  “  there  is  the  unity  of 
history.  The  Church  of  Rome  and  the  Church 
of  England  start  with  1,500  years  of  identical 
history,  an  identical  tradition.  Both  com¬ 
munions  value  this  past  with  a  right  and 
splendid  pride  ;  both  use  it,  both  habitually 
do  that  wise  and  unpopular  thing,  look  back. 
.  .  .  For  us,  as  for  Rome,  this  coincident  past 
is  a  beloved  teacher  and  guide.” 

He  touches  on  various  other  points  of  unity, 
such  as  the  character  of  our  respective 


PREFACE 


9 


liturgies  both  staunchly  sacramental,  both 
capable  of  carrying,  “  if  desired,  an  essentially 
similar  ceremonial.” 

“  Now  the  influence  of  liturgies  tells  over 
long  spaces  of  time  with  amazing  power. 
They  represent  and  guard  and  mould  through 
the  centuries  the  deepest  holiest  moments  in 
the  life  of  Holy  Church.  These  moments 
Rome  and  we  share  every  day.” 

Later  on  in  his  paper  Mr.  Milner-White 
reminds  his  readers  of  an  historical  fact  which 
is  far  too  frequently  lost  sight  of,  viz.,  “  That 
the  Church  of  Rome,  a  few  years  after  the 
Reformation  in  England,  radically  reformed 
herself ;  that  is  to  say,  the  whole  Western  Church 
submitted  to  a  Reformation  not  only  in  England, 
although  in  point  of  time  England  had  a 
slight  lead.  Every  Christian  communion  in 
existence,  except,  perhaps,  the  Eastern  Church, 
is  a  ‘  reformed  ’  one.” 

As  Figgis  has  said  in  his  Civilisation  at  the 
Cross  Roads  (pp.  212-13),  in  speaking  of  the 
Mass  : 

"  There  are  elements  in  the  doctrine,  in  the 
devotion,  in  the  ritual,  even  in  vestment  and 


10 


PREFACE 


gesture  which  sway  us  with  the  accumulated 
force  of  all  the  generations  who  have  used 
them  and  help  us  to  share  in  ‘  the  long  result 
of  time.’  ...  A  man  who  takes  part  in  a  high 
celebration  of  the  Eucharist  is  a  witness  and  a 
sharer  in  the  unity  of  history.  In  this  worship 
he  is  carried  back  through  many  ages,  breath¬ 
ing  climates  older  than  the  Christian,  and  he, 
a  modern,  is  at  one  with  primitive  man  and 
also  has  the  promise  of  the  future.  ...  In 
England  in  the  past  we  have  been  too  '  pro¬ 
vincial/  and  we  do  well  to  lend  all  honour  to 
those  who  are  striving  to  restore  in  all  their 
touching  and  immemorial  beauty  certain  age¬ 
long  notes  of  Catholic  faith,  notably  those 
which  have  to  do  with  the  Communion  of  Saints. 
All  this  may  be  held  with  the  widest  allowance 
for  difference  in  local  custom  and  national 
feeling,  no  less  than  for  the  individual  tempera¬ 
ments,  which  are  not  intended  all  to  emphasise 
the  same  aspects  of  faith  and  worship/’ 

Argyll. 

Inver  ary  Castle ,  Argyll. 

On  the  Feast  of  S.  Gorcanwald  Bp.  Conf.,  1923. 

(April  30.) 


FOREWORD 


The  following  few  pages  are  not  written  by  a 
scholar,  and  they  are  not  intended  primarily 
for  scholars  to  read.  They  are  intended  for 
those  laymen  of  the  Church  of  England  (to 
whom  the  comprehensive  soubriquet  of  “  man 
in  the  street  ”  has  been  for  some  strange 
reason  applied)  who  have  not  the  time  nor 
inclination  either  to  wade  through  long  ex¬ 
cerpts  from  the  Early  Fathers,  or  to  analyse 
the  workings  of  those  European  polities  which 
paved  the  way  for  the  Elizabethan  Settlement  ; 
and  yet  are  puzzled  by  the  attitude  of  that 
powerful  body  in  the  Church  to-day  which  is 
called  Anglo-Catholic,  but  which  they  regard 
either  as  a  half-hearted  compromise  between 
Romanism  and  Protestantism  or  else  as  a 
dangerous  innovation  tending  rapidly  Rome- 
war  ds. 

They  are  intended  to  show  that  the  Cathol¬ 
icism  of  Anglicans  is  not  a  compromise  with 
doctrine,  but  a  conformity  with  truth  ;  not  a 


12 


FOREWORD 


sudden  innovation,  but  a  historic  revival ; 
not  a  breach  with  the  traditional  Christianity 
of  England,  but  a  continuation  of  the  tradition 
of  her  baptism  by  S.  Augustine — a  tradition 
which,  centuries  before  the  manufacture  of 
Protestantism  or  the  development  of  Ultra- 
montanism  from  which  Romanism,  as  it  is 
defined  to-day,  traces  its  evolution,  bound  all 
Christendom  together  in  a  common  religion, 
commanded  and  ordained  by  its  Divine 
Founder,  which,  from  its  universal  character, 
came  to  be  called  Catholic,  and  which  it  is  the 
aim  of  the  Anglican  Catholics  to  restore. 

This  aim  may  be  likened  to  a  golden  thread 
running  through  the  tangled  skein  of  con¬ 
troversy.  The  man  in  the  street  is  frankly 
bored  by  controversy,  and  feels  it  is  time  that 
the  skein  were  unravelled.  It  is  not  so  much 
that  he  is  bored  by  the  birth  at  Bethlehem  as 
puzzled  by  the  attitude  of  Christians  towards 
it.  Instinctively  he  wants  to  get  back  to 
Bethlehem — to  discover  the  manger  for  him¬ 
self  ;  but  he  has  been  told  to  seek  it  in  so 
many  different  places  that  he  is  tempted  to 
abandon  the  search  as  hopeless. 


FOREWORD 


*3 


He  had,  indeed,  almost  done  so — when  there 
happened  an  interesting  historical  interlude  ; 
Moscow  elected  to  take  the  matter  in  hand, 
and  sent  out  a  clarion  call  to  Christendom. 
“  Bethlehem  no  longer  exists  !  ”  it  trumpeted  ; 
and  for  the  moment  this  seemed  to  simplify 
matters. 

But  Moscow  was  not  contented  with  that  : 
in  order  to  demonstrate  more  clearly  that 
Bethlehem  was  not,  it  proclaimed  a  violent 
war  upon  Bethlehem.  “  Face  facts  !  ”  was 
its  ukase  to  the  man  in  the  street ;  and  when 
he  found  himself  confronted  by  the  fact  of 
Christ,  it  told  him  that  it  was  not  a  fact  but 
a  fable.  When  he  found  himself  confronted 
with  the  fact  of  civilisation,  it  told  him  that 
it  was  a  fact  which  must  be  destroyed.  When 
he  found  himself  confronted  with  the  task  of 
destruction,  it  told  him  that  he  could  not 
destroy  the  fact  until  he  had  first  of  all 
destroyed  the  fable. 

But  this  was  too  much  for  the  man  in  the 
street  :  if  Bethlehem  was  the  pivot  on  which 
civilisation  still  rested,  it  must  have  some 
place  on  the  map  after  all.  If  it  were 


14 


FOREWORD 


impossible  to  upset  the  fact  of  civilisation  until 
one  had  first  got  rid  of  the  fable  of  Christ,  it 
seemed  to  him  that  the  fable  must  be  greater 
than  the  fact — that  the  paradoxes  of  a  dog¬ 
matic  negation  were  as  bewildering  as  the 
controversies  of  an  affirmative  faith. 

This  is  the  problem  to-day  of  the  man  in 
the  street  :  if  he  is  to  profess  a  faith  which 
must  be  affirmative,  by  what  authority  is  he 
to  affirm  it  ?  And  if  he  is  prepared  to  accept 
such  authority,  how  is  he  to  be  sure  that  it  is 
divinely  appointed  ? 

It  is  only  the  confident  belief  that  he  who 
seeks  will  ultimately  find  ;  that,  if  he  be  single- 
minded  enough  to  inhibit  all  cynicism,  the 
Holy  Spirit  will  guide  him  into  all  truth ;  and 
that  in  the  meantime  the  Divine  blessing  will 
sanctify  his  seeking,  which  can  justify  the 
writing  of  this  little  book.  For,  when  on  a 
subject  such  as  this,  one  rushes  into  print, 
one’s  responsibility  before  God  must  be  very 
great. 

Aylmer  Hunter. 

London ,  April ,  1923. 


England’s  Reawakening 

“The  Reformation  in  England  was  mainly  a 
domestic  affair,  a  national  protest  against 
national  grievances,  rather  than  part  of  a 
cosmopolitan  movement  towards  doctrinal 
change.  It  originated  in  political  exigences, 
local  and  not  universal  in  import,  and  was  the 
work  of  kings  and  statesmen  .  .  .  rather 
than  divines.  ...  Its  effect  was  to  make  the 
Church  in  England  the  Church  of  England — a 
national  Church.” 

In  these  few  words  the  chief  causes  and 
tendencies  of  the  English  Reformation  are 
aptly  summarised.  They  are  to  be  found  on 
pp.  478-79  of  Vol.  II.  of  the  Cambridge  Modern 
History ,  a  compendious  work  in  twelve  vol¬ 
umes,  planned  under  the  editorship  of  the 
late  Lord  Acton,  a  great  historian,  an  erudite 
scholar,  and  a  son  of  the  Holy  Roman  Church. 
A  few  pages  later,  in  reference  to  the  so-called 
Elizabethan  Settlement,  we  read  : 

“  One  point  is  clear.  The  Henriquan  Anglo- 

15 


16  ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING 


Catholicism  was  dead  and  buried.  ...  In 
distant  days  its  spirit  might  arise  from  the 
tomb  ;  but  not  yet.” 

How,  why  and  when  its  spirit  did  arise  it 
is  the  object  of  the  following  few  pages  to 
show  ;  and  I  cannot  see  why  the  admission 
that,  for  a  space,  its  body  was  regarded  as 
dead  and  buried  can,  in  the  light  of  Calvary, 
be  thought  to  cast  any  doubt  on  its  truth. 
Indeed,  the  very  phrase,  “  the  Henriquan 
Anglo-Catholicism  ”  must  sound  strange  to 
those  who  condemn  this  Catholicism  as  modern 
in  its  growth,  and  roundly  abuse  it  as  un- 
English  in  its  tendency.  Modern  it  is  not  ; 
un-English  it  may  be  :  but  so,  for  the  matter 
of  that,  was  Christ.  Bethlehem  was  far  from 
the  sound  of  Bow  bells  ;  and  Henry,  though 
possibly  in  some  degree  by  marriage  akin  to 
them,  can  hardly,  I  think,  be  reckoned  among 
the  Modernists.  Yet  before  Henry  was,  this 
Catholicism  was  ;  and  if  for  a  space  it  was 
entombed  with  him,  we  must  remember  that 
its  Founder  was  accounted  dead  also,  and  rose 
again  on  the  third  day. 

But  before  we  consider  this  Catholic 


ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING  17 


Christianity,  what  laid  its  spirit,  and  what 
raised  it  up  again,  let  us  look  for  a  moment  at 
Christianity  to-day. 

I  suppose  most  people  in  Europe,  and  a  few 
millions  out  of  it,  call  themselves  Christians  ; 
and  that  at  once  raises  the  question — the  most 
perplexing  question  of  modern  times — What 
is  a  Christian  ?  Mr.  Chesterton  says,  some¬ 
where  :  “Sometimes  a  Christian  means  an 
Evangelical.  Sometimes,  and  more  recently, 
a  Christian  means  a  Quaker.  And  sometimes 
a  Christian  means  a  modest  person  who  thinks 
he  bears  a  resemblance  to  Christ/5 

Nearly  two  thousand  }Tears  ago  the  question 
was  asked,  “  What  is  truth  ?  55  To-day,  and 
in  much  the  same  spirit,  the  question  is  being 
asked,  “  What  is  Christianity  ?”  Sometimes 
rather  cynically  ;  sometimes,  and  more  often, 
a  little  bit  wistfully ;  sometimes  by  the 
atheist,  sometimes  by  the  agnostic,  this  question 
is  being  asked  a  thousand  times  a  day.  And, 
as  a  rule,  the  reply  is  given  :  “  Well,  you  see, 
my  view  of  Christianity  is  this  .  .  .”  And 
then,  if  he  be  in  earnest,  the  inquirer  retorts  : 
“  But  I  don’t  want  your  view  of  Christianity  ; 

B 


i8  ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING 


I  want  to  know  what  Christianity  is”  The 
poor  little  Christian  finds  himself  cornered  ; 
and  that  being  his  standpoint,  he  can  only 
reply  :  “I  can’t  tell  you  more  of  Christianity 
than  Christianity  as  I  view  it.  If  you  want 
anything  more,  go  to  the  Bishop  of  London 
and  get  his  views,  and  to  the  Bishop  of  Liver¬ 
pool  and  get  his,  and  from  among  them  all 
form  your  own.”  Then  the  atheist,  if  he  be 
also  a  logical  atheist,  will  remain  in  his  atheism, 
or  turn  his  attention  to  the  study  of  Buddhism. 
And  I  don’t  see  how  anyone  can  have  the 
presumption  to  blame  him. 

Now,  if  Christianity  is  true,  Christianity  is 
Truth  ;  and  that  being  so,  it  is  something 
concrete,  definite,  and  unchangeable.  It  is 
something  big  outside  ourselves — positive,  and 
very,  very  definite,  to  which  we  can  turn 
for  help  and  guidance  in  shaping  our  daily 
lives.  It  is  not  something  vague  and  pliable 
within  ourselves  which  can  be  shaped  to  the 
individual  inclination  and  temperament. 
Christianity  is  greater  than  man  ;  man  is  not 
greater  than  Christianity.  The  Christian  did 
not  create  Christianity  (though  several  have 


ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING  19 


had  shots  at  various  forms  of  it),  Christianity 
created  the  Christian.  And  when  people  talk 
of  their  view  of  Christianity,  and  Jones’s  view 
of  Christianity,  they  unconsciously  imply  that 
Christianity  is  this  faith  for  this  person,  and 
that  faith  for  that  person,  and  something  quite 
different  for  somebody  else.  In  other  words, 
that  it  is  the  man  who  moulds  the  Faith,  not 
the  Faith  that  moulds  the  man. 

But  Christianity  is  a  concrete  whole,  and 
must  be  viewed  as  a  concrete  whole.  We  hear 
a  great  deal  about  viewing  Christianity  from 
different  angles,  as  though  that  can  change  the 
character  of  Christianity.  Christ  in  New 
York  is  just  the  same  person  as  Christ  in 
London  or  Saskatchewan  ;  or  (by  analogy)  if 
an  astronomer  in  New  York  sees  the  Great 
Bear,  he  sees  the  Great  Bear  ;  when  he  sees  it 
from  London  he  does  not  think  it  a  little  Bear, 
or  from  India  that  it  looks  like  a  lioness. 

And  when  people  talk  of  viewing  Christianity 
from  different  angles,  they  mean  that  they 
concentrate  their  view  on  different  angles  of 
Christianity.  They  see  the  part,  and  they 
think  they  understand  the  whole.  But  they 


20  ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING 

don’t.  They  do  not  even  understand  the 
part,  for  the  whole  meaning  of  the  part  is  the 
way  it  falls  into  line  with  the  whole.  It  is 
like  trying  to  weave  a  science  of  botany  from 
a  study  of  only  English  plant-life.  For  a 
science  is  a  universal  thing,  and  Christianity  is 
the  greatest  of  all  the  sciences,  and  Christianity 
is  universal. 

Now  a  Catholic  means  simply  an  adherent  of 
a  universal  and  visible  Church,  which  he  believes 
to  have  been  founded,  and  its  constitution 
outlined,  by  Christ  Himself.  He  believes  that 
the  value  Christ  placed  on  its  conception  is 
emphasised  and  exemplified  by  the  number  of 
times  He  referred  to  His  Church,  or  Ecclesia, 
as  recorded  in  the  gospels.  He  believes  that 
unless  Christ  had  intended  a  visible  Society, 
He  would  not  have  insisted  on  its  membership 
being  instituted  by  visible  rites.  The  con¬ 
ception  of  the  Invisible  Church,  dwelling  with¬ 
in  the  hearts  of  mankind,  so  dear  to  the 
minds  of  Calvin  and  Zwingli,  though  rejected 
by  their  followers,  is  hard  to  reconcile  with 
the  fact  that  in  all  Christ’s  parables  regarding 
the  Church,  His  similes  are  always  of  a  visible 


ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING  21 


nature.  (Men  do  not,  for  instance,  have  nets, 
or  grains  of  mustard  seed  dwelling  in  their 
hearts.)  He  believes  that  Christ  endowed  His 
disciples  and  their  successors  with  an  unequiv- 
ocable  and  ever-living  mandate  ;  and  since  the 
work  of  the  Church  was  clearly  not  limited  to 
the  lifetime  of  Christ,  he  cannot  see  why  the 
powers  or  authority  conferred  on  the  disciples 
should  be  deemed  to  be  limited  to  their  life-time 
either.  He  believes  that  Christ’s  words,  “  Lo,  I 
am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the 
world,”  is  a  guarantee  that  the  true  and  united 
Church  shall  be  preserved  from  false  doctrine  ; 
and  the  very  fact  that  the  man  who  neglects 
to  hear  the  Church  is  to  be  regarded  as  a 
heathen  and  a  publican,  presupposes  that  the 
Church  will  tell  him  the  truth.  It  seems, 
indeed,  somewhat  derogatory  to  the  Godhead 
to  assume  that  an  all-merciful  Providence  will 
condemn  a  man  for  not  listening  to  the  voice 
of  the  Church  if  that  voice  is  liable  to  be 
impregnated  with  error. 

Thus,  to  the  Catholic,  the  authority  of  the 
Church  is  of  vital  importance  ;  and  since  true 
authority  can  only  proceed  from  unity — from 


22 


ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING 


the  whole  body,  and  not  from  one  limb  as 
distinct  from  another,  far  less  from  one  limb 
as  at  war  with  another,  to  the  multiplication  of 
divers  conflicting  authorities — it  follows  that 
unity  must  be  the  paramount  Catholic  ideal. 

And  this  ideal,  I  venture  to  think,  is  in  its 
practical  efforts  towards  realisation  more  ap¬ 
parent  on  the  Anglo-Catholic  banners  which 
the  great  Orthodox  Church  of  the  East  have 
long  since  grown  to  recognise  and  respect,  than 
anywhere  else  in  the  Christian  world.  Look  at 
Protestantism  ;  look  at  Romanism.  The  one, 
while  doing  lip-service  to  unity,  renounces  that 
authority  which  alone  can  preserve  it  ;  and 
the  other  checks  all  approach  to  unity  by 
maintaining  that  an  authority  usurped  in  1871 
was,  by  some  peculiar  process  of  retrospect, 
imposed  on  all  Christendom  by  Christ  Himself  I 

But  before  I  go  any  further  let  me  make  it 
quite  clear  that  when  I  say  the  papal  authority 
was  usurped,  or  when  I  say  anything  else 
which  I  may  find  it  necessary  to  say  with  regard 
to  the  Papacy  in  the  past,  I  do  not  intend  any¬ 
thing  to  be  taken  as  personally,  or  in  any 
way,  offensive  to  his  holiness  Pope  Pius  XI., 


ENGLAND'S  REAWAKENING  23 


who,  as  Cardinal  Ratti,  was  so  universally 
beloved.  All,  indeed,  who  had  the  privilege  of 
knowing  him,  either  personally  or  by  repute, 
regarded  him  with  the  greatest  veneration  and 
esteem,  and  his  elevation  to  the  highest  office 
in  Christendom  was  looked  upon  as  the  dawn 
of  that  great  and  ever-increasing  hope — the 
hope  of  reunion. 

When  I  speak  of  the  usurped  authority  of 
the  Papacy  I  mean,  as  I  hope  to  show  in  more 
detail  later,  that  the  conception  of  Papal 
Supremacy,  which  led  the  way  to  the  doctrine 
of  Papal  Infallibility,  has  caused  in  practice 
a  certain  amount  of  rightful  episcopal 
authority  to  be  transferred  from  the  bishops 
to  the  Pope,  in  that  the  exercise  of  such 
authority  requires  at  certain  times  fresh  powers 
from  the  Pope  ;  even  more,  as  Lord  Halifax 
so  clearly  points  out,  than  the  de  fide  teaching 
of  Rome  would  seem  to  warrant. 

And  so  we  look  round  on  a  divided  Christen¬ 
dom — divided  more  sorely,  perhaps,  than  ever 
before — until  it  almost  seems  as  though  God 
were  angry,  and,  as  once  before  He  withdrew  to 
Mount  Sinai,  so  now  He  had  withdrawn  His 


24  ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING 


authority  from  the  Church.  And  yet  we  know 
His  authority  is  there  all  the  time,  if  only  her 
members  would  join  hands  and  receive  it  ; 
for  in  unity  alone  is  it  to  be  found. 

But  before  the  Church  of  England  can  preach 
unity  to  a  divided  Christendom  she  herself  must 
cease  to  be  divided  ;  and  happily,  in  the  last 
half-century  or  more,  a  realisation  of  this,  and 
of  the  Catholic  nature  of  the  Church  has  been 
steadily  gaining  ground.  Churchmen  feel,  with 
an  ever-increasing  intensity,  that  although  in 
the  last  four  hundred  years  it  has  been  im¬ 
possible  always  to  use  Christian  and  Catholic 
as  synonymous  terms,  as  it  once  was,  the  great 
historical  truth  remains  that  the  fulness  of 
Christianity,  the  plenitude  of  spiritual  grace, 
the  application  to  one’s  daily  life  of  the  part 
by  a  knowledge  of  its  relation  to  the  whole, 
must  always  be  synonymous  with  Catholicism. 

So  often,  for  some  reason,  exception  is  taken 
to  the  word  "  Catholic.”  Churchmen  are 
asked  why  they  must  needs  call  themselves 
Catholic  ;  why  they  cannot  be  content  with 
the  simple  word  “  Christian.”  They  are  very 
content  with  the  word  "  Christian  ” — though 


ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING 


25 


not  always  so  content  with  the  strange  mean¬ 
ings  applied  to  it — but  the  Christian  ideal, 
surely,  is  to  make  Christianity  universal ;  and 
Catholic  merely  means  universal.  For  fifteen 
hundred  years  after  the  death  of  Christ 
Catholicism  was  understood  to  mean  the  unity 
and  universality  of  Christendom.  A  Catholic 
was  a  member  of  the  universal  Church,  and 
because  of  its  Universal  character  he  came 
to  be  called  a  Catholic.  He  still  calls  himself 
a  Catholic,  for  if  the  membership  is  not  so 
universal  as  it  once  was,  he  feels  that  it  should 
be.  The  ideal  is  the  same,  but  the  processes  of 
history  have  retarded  its  fulfilment. 

There  is  no  space  here  to  go  in  any  detail 
into  those  processes.  The  causes  which  led 
to  the  disruption  of  Christendom  are  a  matter 
of  history,  and  from  history  we  are  at  liberty 
to  form  what  view  we  will.  Some  think  it 
was  due  to  the  corrupt  state  of  the  Church 
from  the  fourteenth  century  onwards  ;  others 
that  it  was  due  to  the  arrogance  of  the  Re¬ 
formers  in  precipitating  a  breach.  It  may, 
however,  be  very  reasonably  doubted  whether 
either  of  these  views,  as  distinct  from  the 


26  ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING 


other,  can  be  historically  justified.  There  were 
undoubtedly  faults  on  both  sides,  as  there 
have  been  in  every  dispute  in  history.  The 
primary  cause  was,  no  doubt,  the  errors  creep¬ 
ing  in  to  the  corrupt  Roman  hierarchy  ;  but 
it  is  not  possible  altogether  to  discount  the 
impatient  precipitancy  of  the  Reformers. 

That  in  the  matter  of  morals  the  Reformers 
had  a  good  prima  facie  case  against  Rome 
cannot  be  doubted.  By  the  most  moderate  it 
must  be  admitted  that  the  private  lives  of  the 
Roman  hierarchy  were  ill  in  accord  with  the 
faith  they  professed.  Even  at  that  date  the 
Vatican  claimed  sole  jurisdiction  over  faith 
and  morals,  and  once  opportunity  was  given  to 
throw  stones  at  the  morals,  it  was  a  very  short 
step  towards  criticising  the  faith.  All  attempt 
at  reform  from  within  was  steadily  resisted,  and 
the  extravagances  of  the  Vatican  continued 
unchecked. 

To  cause  a  breach  in  the  Church,  however,  be¬ 
cause  certain  of  her  chief  officers  were  leading 
un-Christian  and  immoral  lives,  and  so,  by  their 
example,  degrading  the  Christian  life  of  the 
community,  though  doubtless  to  earnest- 


ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING  27 


minded  men  a  powerful  temptation,  can  never 
pass  muster  as  a  justification.  The  Pope  was 
human  ;  his  office  divine.  Individual  delin¬ 
quencies  could  not  detract  from  the  sanctity 
and  authority  of  that  office.  To  confuse  the 
two  was  bad  theology ;  and  on  the  laurels  of 
this  very  logical  argument  the  Vatican  was 
perfectly  contented  to  rest.  The  Reformers, 
however,  asserted  that  there  must  be  some¬ 
thing  radically  wrong  to  render  such  an 
anomaly  possible  ;  that  what  were  regarded 
as  merely  individual  delinquencies,  deplor¬ 
able  enough  in  such  high  spiritual  office, 
were  subversive  to  doctrine  as  well  as  to 
morals  ;  that  the  Faith  was  being  prostituted 
to  facilitate  such  delinquencies  ;  and  Martin 
Luther,  at  that  time  a  devout  son  of  the 
Church,  quoted  the  “  sale  of  indulgences  ”  as  a 
case  in  point. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  in  the  preceding 
centuries  the  conception  of  an  indulgence  had 
undergone  a  complete  change.  From  the 
perfectly  logical  theory  that  the  Church  had 
the  power  to  remit  or  commute  canonical 
penances  which  the  Church  had  in  the  first 


28  ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING 


place  imposed,  had  been  evolved  the  idea  of  a 
Tresaurus  Meritor  urn,  or  treasury  of  merits. 
In  this,  it  was  claimed,  were  stored  the  in¬ 
exhaustible  merits  of  Christ,  and  the  super¬ 
fluous  merits  of  the  saints,  which  the  Pope  had 
power  to  dole  out  to  the  faithful.  Hence  the 
idea  of  a  substitution  of  merits  ;  and  this 
substitution,  it  was  held,  was  not  necessarily 
confined  to  this  life.  People  believed  that  by 
“  buying  an  indulgence  ”  they  were  actually 
purchasing  a  remission  of  punishment  in  the 
world  to  come ;  and  from  the  thirteenth 
century  onwards  an  indulgence  a  poena  et  a 
culpa  was  generally  believed  to  free  the  sinner 
not  only  from  the  temporal  punishment  but 
from  the  actual  guilt  of  sin. 

The  fact  that  indulgences  were  so  assidu¬ 
ously  farmed  under  the  Medici  Pope,  Leo  X., 
whose  pontificate  was  notorious  for  all  the 
extravagant  pomp  and  love  of  display  which 
had  always  characterised  the  Medicean  rule, 
certainly  lends  colour  to  the  Reformers'  conten¬ 
tion  that  the  private  life  of  the  Pontiff  had  a 
very  direct  bearing  on  the  religious  life  of  the 
people  at  large. 


ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING  29 


Be  this  as  it  may,  however,  it  is  a  significant 
fact  that  the  doctrine  of  indulgences,  as  in¬ 
terpreted  by  Rome,  is  rejected  to-day,  outside 
her  jurisdiction,  by  Catholics  both  in  East 
and  West ;  as  is  also  the  doctrine  which  the 
Popes,  in  the  teeth  of  strong  opposition  and 
in  defiance  of  the  ruling  of  previous  Councils, 
had  by  this  time  succeeded  in  establishing, 
and  with  which  the  Reformers  joined  violent 
issue — that  the  authority  of  the  Church  is 
vested  in  the  Pope,  independent  of  Councils, 
and  that  all  Councils  must  necessarily  be 
subordinate  to  him. 

Whether  or  no  the  Reformers  realised  that 
the  establishment  of  Papal  Supremacy  was 
paving  the  way  for  a  subsequent  decree  of  Papal 
Infallibility,  at  this  distance  of  time  it  is  im¬ 
possible  to  say.  The  fact  that  the  Ecumenical 
Council  of  Constantinople  in  the  seventh 
century  expressly  included  Pope  Honorius, 
over  forty  years  after  his  death,  in  the  anathema 
directed  against  the  Monothelite  heretics, 
gives  a  clear  indication  that,  at  that  time  at 
any  rate,  the  Pope  was  not  regarded  as 
superior  to  Council  ;  and  the  dissentient 


30 


ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING 


minority  in  the  Vatican  Council  of  1870  ad¬ 
duced  this  as  an  argument  against  Infallibility. 
The  de  Unitate  Ecclesice  of  Cyprian  made  it 
clear  that  the  primacy  of  the  Pope  was  only  a 
primacy  inter  pares  on  the  grounds  that  the 
bishops  possessed  an  inchoate  divine  right  to 
share  in  the  government  of  the  Church  ;  and 
it  is  worthy  of  remark  that  this  divine  right  of 
the  episcopate  our  Ecclesia  Anglicana,  through¬ 
out  her  long  history,  has  always  respected. 

On  the  Continent,  however,  it  is  idle  to 
deny  that  the  gradual  aggrandisement,  if  I 
may  use  that  word,  of  the  power  of  the  Papacy 
caused  a  corresponding  diminution  in  the 
powers  of  the  Episcopate.  The  very  require¬ 
ment  that  for  the  continued  exercise  of  Epis¬ 
copal  Authority  fresh  powers  have  periodically 
to  be  applied  for  to  the  Holy  See  is  tantamount 
to  an  admission  that  such  Episcopal  authority 
is  deemed  to  be  derived  directly  from  the 
Holy  See,  instead  of  being  inchoate  in  the 
Episcopate  by  divine  prescription. 

It  is  convenient,  I  think,  to  refer  to  this 
matter  in  this  place,  and  at  the  risk  of  an¬ 
ticipating,  I  do  so  with  some  emphasis  because 


ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING  31 


I  feel  it  is  one  of  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of 
reunion  which  has  to  be  faced,  and,  that 
being  so,  there  is  no  use  in  glossing  it  over. 
The  primacy  of  the  Pope  as  first  bishop  in 
Christendom,  by  right  of  his  descent  from 
blessed  Peter,  Anglicans  with  one  accord 
would  gladly  recognise  ;  and,  by  a  parity  of 
reasoning,  there  should  be  little  hesitation,  I 
think,  in  regarding  His  Holiness  as  the  Church’s 
visible  head,  in  so  far  as  he  was  the  Church’s 
official  mouthpiece.  If,  in  course  of  time,  the 
Infallibility  decree  can  be  interpreted  to  mean 
that,  after  the  whole  Church  in  Council  has 
found  agreement  on  some  grievous  matter, 
the  Pope’s  subsequent  official  pronouncement 
to  Christendom  shall  be  accorded  the  stamp  of 
infallibility,  there  seems  no  reason  why  the 
decree  of  1871  should  any  longer  stand  in  the 
way  of  reunion. 

It  is,  indeed,  on  lines  such  as  these  that  I 
believe  reunion  will  ultimately  be  reached. 
So  many  of  the  difficulties  that  divide  us  from 
Rome  lend  themselves  so  readily  to  readjust¬ 
ment — old  truths  clad  in  new  language  to 
meet  the  growing  needs  of  Christendom — that 


32  ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING 

one  feels  that  the  rightful  position  of  the 
Episcopate  will  be  found  capable  of  readjust¬ 
ment  also.  There  would,  for  instance,  have 
to  be  some  guarantee  that  Anglican  bishops 
should  retain  undisturbed  and  undiminished 
that  power  and  authority  which  we  believe 
resides  in  the  Episcopate  as  an  inchoate  divine 
right,  and  that  there  should  be  no  danger,  in 
course  of  time,  of  their  becoming  mere  func¬ 
tionaries  under  the  Pope. 

That  this  should  have  happened  on  the 
Continent,  however,  is  hardly  to  be  wondered 
at.  It  is  the  inevitable  result  of  that  gradual 
policy  of  over-centralisation  which  was  so 
clearly  evident  in  embryo  in  the  centuries 
directly  preceding  the  Reformation.  And  yet 
as  late  as  1430  the  Council  of  Basle  had  con¬ 
firmed  the  decree  sacrosancta  of  1415  in  which 
the  Council  of  Constance  had  proclaimed  that  a 
general  council  assembled  in  the  Holy  Spirit, 
and  representing  the  Catholic  Church  Militant, 
derived  its  power  immediately  from  Christ,  and 
was  supreme  over  everyone  in  the  Church, 
not  even  excluding  the  Pope. 

It  will  be  seen,  therefore,  that  in  point  of 


ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING  33 


time  Papal  Supremacy  was  almost  as  novel  a 
conception  at  the  time  of  the  Reformation  as 
Papal  Infallibility  is  to-day  ;  and  although  in 
a  short  sketch  of  the  history  of  Anglo- 
Catholicism  a  discussion  of  the  controversies 
which  heralded  the  continental  Reformation 
must  for  the  most  part  be  out  of  place,  the  few 
points  of  contact  which  exist  between  the 
attitude  of  the  Reformers  and  the  attitude  of 
Anglican  and  Eastern  Catholicism  to-day 
makes  a  brief  reference  to  those  respective 
attitudes  relevant. 

In  the  matter  of  indulgences,  and  in  the 
question  of  the  rightful  allocation  of  authority, 
it  must  be  admitted  that  the  Reformers  had 
a  very  good  case  ;  and  on  these  grounds  their 
further  contention  that  the  abuses  in  conduct 
were  in  danger  of  involving  errors  in  doctrine 
is  certainly  plausible.  And  if  one  can  assume 
that  they  were  so  far  justified,  they  would 
undoubtedly  further  have  been  justified  in 
refusing  to  be  associated  with  a  hierarchy 
which  they  maintained  had  fallen  into  error. 
All  they  had  to  do  was  to  affirm,  as  so  large  a 

part  of  Catholic  Christendom  affirms  to-day, 

c 


34  ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING 


that  the  Roman  See  was  in  schism,  and  remain 
quietly  where  they  were.  Their  position  then 
in  the  Church  would  have  been  clearly  estab¬ 
lished  :  either  Rome  was  in  schism,  or  they 
were  ;  but  in  either  case  both  were  part  of  the 
Church. 

Unfortunately,  however,  they  went  further. 
Not  content  with  reforming,  they  tried  to 
create.  They  left  the  Church  and  founded  sects, 
forgetting  that  only  Christ  can  found  a  Church. 
Their  activities  were  greatest  in  Germany, 
although  France  did  not  escape  the  arrogance  of 
Calvin.  We,  in  this  country,  were  more  for¬ 
tunate  :  though  the  record  of  those  dark  days 
does  not  leave  an  Englishman  room  for  much 
pride.  Yet  whatsoever  sins  we  committed, 
and  God  knows  we  committed  enough,  we  did 
not  commit  the  sin  of  apostacy — we  did  not 
secede  from  the  body  of  the  Church,  although  for 
the  space  of  three  centuries  many  of  us  be¬ 
haved  very  much  as  if  we  had. 

But,  in  order  properly  to  understand  what 
follows,  it  is  necessary  to  get  a  right  per¬ 
spective  of  Henry  VIII.’s  quarrel  with  the  Pope. 

Whatever  view  we  may  take  of  Henry’s 


ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING  35 


morals  (and  from  the  standpoint  of  his  cynical 
contemporaries,  even  in  this  respect  his  chief 
offence  was  that  he  took  very  good  care  that 
he  should  be  found  out),  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  he  never  regarded  himself,  and  never 
intended  himself  to  be  regarded,  as  anything 
but  a  Catholic.  Leo  X.  had  conferred  on 
him  the  title  of  “  Defender  of  the  Faith,”  and 
doubtless  he  thought  that  he  defended  it 
admirably. 

The  quarrel  which  raged  round  his  divorce, 
of  which  historians  have  made  so  much,  was 
not  a  theological  quarrel  with  the  doctrine  of 
the  Church,  but  a  personal  quarrel  with  an 
unaccommodating  prelate.  He  had  wanted 
to  marry  his  deceased  brother’s  widow,  and 
Julius  II.  had  been  most  obliging.  Now  in 
turn  he  wanted  to  get  rid  of  her,  and  Cle¬ 
ment  VII.  proved  suddenly  obdurate.  A 
dispensation  had  been  granted  in  the  one  case  : 
why  should  a  dispensation  be  refused  in  the 
other  ? 

Julius’s  dispensation,  granted  on  the  con¬ 
venient  assumption  that  the  former  marriage 
had  never  been  consummated,  Rome  has  made 


36  ENGLAND'S  REAWAKENING 

valiant  efforts  to  justify.  But  two  facts  stand 
out  clear.  Even  in  that  cynical  age  it  was 
generally  regarded  as  a  distinct  violation  of 
canonical  law  ;  and  like  so  many  other  dis¬ 
pensations,  obtained  at  that  time  with  a  like 
facility,  the  fact  that  it  was  granted  at  all  was 
due  solely  to  the  dictates  of  political  ex¬ 
pediency.  Julius  had  troubles  enough  nearer 
home  without  wishing  to  incur  the  enmity  of 
Henry  ;  so  he  stretched  a  point,  and  gave  him 
a  bride. 

But  political  expediency  is  a  fickle  jade. 
Having  thrown  Henry  happily  into  the  arms 
of  his  first  bride,  it  did  all  in  its  power  to 
obstruct  him  from  his  second.  Principle  was 
suddenly  called  into  play — principle  at  the 
point  of  the  bayonet.  Before  Clement  could 
help  Henry  to  get  rid  of  Katharine  he  had  to 
reckon  with  her  nephew,  the  Emperor  Charles  ; 
and  as  Charles  held  Clement  prisoner  in  the 
Castle  of  St.  Angelo,  it  was  not,  perhaps,  a 
very  propitious  moment. 

The  Roman  contention  that  Henry’s  in¬ 
famous  petition  for  divorce  struck  against  the 
impregnable  rock  of  S.  Peter,  sounds  very  well. 


ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING  37 


The  fact  that  the  Emperor’s  artillery  was  at 
the  same  time  striking  against  the  less  im¬ 
pregnable  bricks  of  St.  Angelo  may,  of  course, 
have  been  mere  coincidence.  If  all  such 
petitions  had  been  treated  likewise,  one  would 
be  inclined  to  say  that  it  was.  That  the  Petrine 
rock  should  suddenly  become  impregnable 
under  the  custody  of  Clement,  when  it  had 
proved  so  resilient  under  the  custody  of  Julius, 
no  doubt  was  irritating.  That  the  same  rock, 
under  the  same  custody,  should  be  impregnable 
to  Henry,  and  at  the  same  time  resilient  to 
Margaret,  his  sister,  probably  was  even  more 
irritating  still. 

Margaret,  that  evil  Queen  of  the  Scots, 
secured  her  divorce  from  Angus  with  the 
greatest  of  ease,  and  it  was  only  the  eleventh- 
hour  intervention  of  her  son,  King  James, 
which  prevented  her  third  marriage,  with 
Methven,  being  dissolved  by  Rome.  And 
although  all  cases  of  marriages  dissolved  by 
papal  dispensation  have  been  carefully  filed, 
and  justification  from  the  canon  law  filed  with 
them  (the  compilation  must  have  taken  theolo¬ 
gians  some  time),  one  can  quite  understand 


38  ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING 


Henry  being  angry.  Indeed,  it  is  difficult  to 
get  away  from  the  fact  that  whenever  ex¬ 
pediency  favoured  a  dispensation,  justification 
from  the  canon  law  was  always  forthcoming  ; 
but  whenever,  as  in  this  case,  compliance 
would  be  dangerous,  expediency  found  a 
convenient  backing  in  principle.  And  even 
in  the  matter  of  Henry’s  divorce,  the  cor¬ 
respondence  of  the  time  shows  clearly  that 
Clement  would  gladly  have  yielded  the  prin¬ 
ciple  if  he  had  not  been  compelled  to  yield  to 
the  Emperor.  It  is  impossible,  of  course,  to 
defend  Henry’s  morals,  but  one  is  forced  to 
admit  that  his  anger  was  human. 

He  saw,  and  his  vision  was  the  vision  of  a 
united  nation,  that  the  Pope’s  claim  to 
spiritual  supremacy  was,  at  that  time,  merely 
a  cloak  for  political  interference.1  The  Papal 


1  The  subsequent  attempts  of  Mary,  Queen  of  Scots, 
to  usurp  the  throne  of  England  is  a  case  in  point.  How¬ 
ever  much  on  sentimental  grounds  we  may  regret  her 
execution,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  on  political  grounds 
Elizabeth  was  justified  in  giving  her  reluctant  consent  to 
it.  Indeed,  the  very  fact  that  her  consent  was  so  long 
delayed,  and  was  given  in  the  end  as  reluctantly  as  it 
was,  does  Elizabeth  the  utmost  credit. 

On  moral  grounds  there  are  many  who  argue  that  Mary 
Stuart  was  better  out  of  the  world  than  in  it,  and  maintain 
that  an  English  jury  would  have  given  a  similar  verdict 


ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING  39 


Supremacy,  though  from  time  to  time  enforced 
in  this  country,  had  never  been  regarded  as 
de  fide  by  the  Ecclesia  Anglicana  in  the  same 
way  that  it  was  gradually  being  accepted  on 
the  Continent.  The  reason  is  not  far  to  seek. 
On  the  Continent  the  papal  claims  were  sup¬ 
ported  by  the  temporal  power.  The  sharpness 
of  the  pontifical  sword  commanded  respect 


in  her  case  to  the  one  lately  given  in  the  case  of  Mrs.  Thom¬ 
son  ;  but  since  Mary,  being  a  Scottish  queen,  could  in  no 
way  be  subject  to  the  civil  law  of  England,  all  such 
hypotheses  must  necessarily  be  irrelevant.  The  sole 
case  for  Elizabeth  was  that  Mary  coveted  the  throne  of 
England,  and  her  continued  existence  was  a  perpetual 
menace  to  it. 

How  real  this  menace  actually  was  is  shown  by  the 
fact  that  there  are  some  people  to-day  who  assert  that 
Mary,  not  Elizabeth,  was  in  the  rightful  line  of  succession 
— and  this,  presumably,  because  the  Pope  had  declared 
Elizabeth  to  be  illegitimate. 

This,  in  retrospect,  is  highly  significant,  showing,  as  it 
does,  that  the  English  people's  fear  of  papal  interference 
in  the  political  life  of  England  was  not  merely  the  out¬ 
come  of  a  distraught  imagination.  By  the  law  of  England 
Elizabeth  was  the  legitimate  daughter  of  Henry  VIII., 
and,  as  by  law  established,  his  rightful  successor  to  the 
throne  of  England.  She  was  as  much  our  Sovereign  Lady 
the  Queen  as  King  George  is  our  Sovereign  Lord  the  King. 
If  the  Pope  did  not  choose  to  recognise  her,  that  was  his 
affair.  But  if  he  chose  to  take  it  upon  himself  to  declare 
her  illegitimate,  and  so  incite  an  alien  queen  to  usurp  her 
throne,  it  seems  rather  illogical  to  condone  that  queen's 
action  and  condemn  those  who  exacted  the  penalty  she 
had  to  pay  for  it. 

Equally  illogical  it  is  to  call  the  English  people  un¬ 
reasonable  or  wicked  for  thinking  it  politically  expedient 
to  keep  the  Pope  at  a  respectful  distance.  It  was  merely 
the  instinct  of  self-preservation. 


40  ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING 


for  the  pontifical  tiara.  In  the  reverberation 
of  European  wars,  in  the  exchange  and  mart 
of  European  politics,  the  Papacy  was  in  a 
position  to  command  concessions.  But  Eng¬ 
land  was  protected  by  her  island  coast.  Yet, 
even  on  the  Continent,  at  various  times  and 
with  varying  success,  Catholic  princes  had 
resisted  papal  aggression. 

Henry’s  attitude,  then,  was  no  new  de¬ 
parture.  When  he  asserted  that  an  Italian 
prelate  could  have  no  jurisdiction  over  Catholic 
England, he  merely,  in  so  far  as  the  independence 
of  the  episcopate  was  concerned,  relegated  the 
Pope  to  his  rightful  position.  When  he 
insisted  on  his  being  referred  to  as  the  Bishop 
of  Rome,  he  was  reverting  to  the  earliest 
historical  precedent.  Clement  also  reverted 
to  historical  precedent  (though  not  such  an 
early  one)  when  he  excommunicated  Henry  in 
the  same  way  that  his  predecessor  had  ex¬ 
communicated  John.  But  the  historical  prece¬ 
dent  went  no  further.  John  had  been  in¬ 
timidated  by  fear  of  France,  and  that  is  where 
Clement  miscalculated  :  he  confused  a  sub¬ 
mission  to  fear  with  a  submission  to  faith. 


ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING  41 


But  Henry,  although  a  despot,  was,  perhaps 
without  knowing  it,  more  truly  representative 
of  the  popular  will  than  the  craven  John  could 
ever  have  been  ;  and,  with  all  his  faults,  he  was 
no  coward.  He  snapped  his  fingers,  none  too 
politely,  in  the  face  of  the  Pope  ;  he  freed  his 
people,  and  especially  the  episcopate,  from  an 
authority  which  he  maintained  was  usurped, 
and  ordered  their  Catholicism  to  continue,  in 
its  essence,  unchanged.  Whether  he  was  right 
or  whether  he  was  wrong,  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  he  had  a  united  nation  behind  him. 
Whatever  his  mistakes — and  he  made  many — 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  he  had  had  great 
provocation  ;  and  the  practically  unanimous 
popular  acclamation  of  his  act  shows  that  it 
was  a  provocation  shared  by  the  whole  realm. 
To  say  that  all  the  faults  were  on  one  side  is 
ridiculous  ;  to  apportion  the  blame  with  a 
strict  nicety  of  fairness  is  well-nigh  impossible, 
and  in  a  work  like  the  present  quite  out  of 
place. 

But,  without  wishing  to  vindicate  Henry 
VIII.,  or  enter  into  a  profitless  defence  of 
his  actions,  even  where  those  actions  were 


42  ENGLAND'S  REAWAKENING 


clearly  defensible,  one  can  safely  rely  on  history 
as  a  witness  when  one  states  definitely  that  the 
regrettable  quarrel  between  Henry  and  the 
Pope  in  no  way  robbed  Ecclesia  Anglicana  of 
her  birthright  of  faith  or  her  heritage  as  a  part 
of  the  great  Church  Catholic.  The  Henri quan 
Anglo-Catholicism,  indeed,  was  in  its  inception 
in  accordance  with  the  earliest  religious  tradi¬ 
tions  of  the  country.  That  gradually  it  be¬ 
came  more  and  more  diluted  with  Protestantism 
was,  as  the  Cambridge  Modern  History  so  justly 
says,  the  work  of  politicians  rather  than  of 
divines.  But  it  was  chiefly  the  work  of  a 
Roman  Catholic  queen. 

At  the  time  of  Henry's  death  England  could 
still  be  reckoned  as  a  Catholic  country  ;  and 
followers  of  the  Continental  Reformation  had 
to  choose  between  silence  and  the  stake.  That 
his  successor  should  have  been  a  young  and 
delicate  boy,  at  the  mercy  of  unscrupulous 
guardians,  was  a  national  calamity.  Yet  the 
first  Prayer  Book  of  Edward  VI.  was  essentially 
a  Catholic  compilation.  That  the  second 
Prayer  Book  was  not  so  happy  was  due  to  the 
corrupt  influence  and  political  machinations 


ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING  43 


of  Northumberland,  who  was  so  utterly  callous 
on  all  matters  connected  with  religion  that, 
after  doing  his  best  to  Protestantise  the 
Prayer  Book,  he  died  professing  himself  a 
Roman  Catholic  in  a  belated  attempt  to  escape 
the  scaffold.  But  the  spirit  of  Catholicism 
was  still  so  strong  in  the  instincts  of  the 
people  that  it  is  doubtful  if  this  compilation 
would  have  stood  the  test  of  time,  and  formed 
the  basis  of  the  one  which  replaced  it  in 
Elizabeth's  reign,  if,  in  the  meantime,  the 
country  had  not  been  subjected  to  a  martyr¬ 
dom,  tyranny  and  oppression  which  made  it 
hail  the  Elizabethan  Settlement  as  a  charter  of 
freedom  from  a  bondage  unbearable. 

It  may  sound  a  paradox,  but  it  is  none  the 
less  a  truism,  that  the  introduction  of  Pro¬ 
testantism  into  the  Church  in  England  was  not, 
in  the  main,  the  work  of  the  Protestants. 
That  almost  incredible  feat  must  be  placed 
primarily  to  the  credit  of  Rome.  It  was 
Mary,  not  Cranmer,  who  kindled  such  a  torch 
in  this  country  that  it  would  never  be  put  out. 
And  that  torch  branded  on  the  hearts  of  her 
people  such  a  detestation  of  Rome,  and  all 


44  ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING 


things  connected  with  Rome,  that  it  is  perhaps 
not  to  be  wondered  at  that,  in  the  blind  passion 
of  their  reaction,  they  had  not  in  all  things  a 
just  discrimination. 

History  has  been  hard  on  Mary  Tudor,  as 
history  will  always  be  hard  on  those  who  make 
their  memory  a  thing  of  fear  ;  and  so,  with  the 
inevitable  swing  of  the  pendulum,  biographers 
now  vie  with  each  other  in  their  zeal  to  white¬ 
wash  her.  Elizabeth,  we  are  told  gravely, 
burnt  as  many,  if  not  more  people  than  Mary 
— utterly  regardless  of  the  fact  that  the  former 
had  over  half  a  century  to  do  it  in,  whereas 
Mary  reigned  only  for  six  short  years.  That  is 
the  whole  difference  beween  a  battle  and  a 
massacre. 

And  yet  this  poor  woman’s  life  was  such  a 
tragedy,  her  upbringing  provides  so  many 
extenuating  circumstances,  that  one  wonders 
why  a  mistaken  sense  of  chivalry  should 
produce  in  her  defence  such  pitiable  paliatives. 

Most  of  us,  I  suppose,  are  familiar  with  that 
grotesque  fable,  so  characteristic  of  a  certain 
type  of  propaganda,  that  the  Church  of 
England  was  instituted  because  Henry  VIII. 


ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING  45 


wanted  a  new  wife  ;  and  Mary  doubtless  was 
schooled  to  believe  that  her  mother  was  put 
away  because  Henry  wanted  to  change  his 
religion.  The  true  reason  that  he  did  not  in 
any  way  want  to  change  his  religion,  but  that 
he  wanted  very  much  to  change  his  wife,  and 
so  secure  a  male  heir  to  the  throne,  though  not 
in  itself  a  more  laudable  motive,  nor  one  likely 
to  find  favour  with  Katharine's  daughter, 
would  not  perhaps  have  been  so  calculated  to 
inspire  her  with  that  insensate  bigotry  and 
bitterness  against  the  opponents  of  her  mother’s 
religion  which  was  destined  to  dominate  her 
whole  life.  This  bitterness  was  augmented 
by  her  every  environment,  until  it  grew  to  be 
a  positive  obsession. 

The  persecution  to  which  she  was  subjected 
during  her  brother’s  minority,  though  mild  in 
comparison  with  the  persecution  she  subse¬ 
quently  meted  out  to  others,  was  scarcely 
conducive  to  softening  this  bitterness  ;  and 
her  cold-blooded  husband,  Philip  of  Spain,  did 
all  in  his  ill-omened  power  to  quicken  it. 

And  so  this  embittered,  disappointed,  un¬ 
loved  and  unlovely  woman — bigoted,  and 


46  ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING 


barren  of  all  human  sympathy  ;  cruel,  and  yet  in 
a  fierce  way  conscientious — devoted  a  reign  of 
six  years  to  burning  men’s  bodies  in  order,  as 
she  believed,  to  save  their  souls.  Whatever 
excuses  may  be  offered,  however  extenuating 
the  circumstances,  the  harm  she  did  both  to  her 
cause  and  her  country  is  incalculable.  If  the 
word  “  Calais  ”  was  branded  on  her  heart  when 
she  died,  “no  popery’’  was  branded  on  the 
hearts  of  her  people.  In  letters  of  blood  she 
signed  the  death-warrant  of  her  faith  in  this 
country,  and  the  only  sovereign  who  attempted 
to  reimpose  it  again  was  exiled  before  he 
had  measured  quite  half  her  reign.  So  much 
for  Roman  Catholicism ;  but  what  of  the 
Henriquan  Anglo-Catholicism  ? 

Certainly,  as  the  Cambridge  Modern  History 
says,  its  spirit  was  laid  in  the  tomb ;  but  was  there 
a  chance  left  to  it  of  resurrection  in  the  future  ? 
In  other  words,  did  we  follow  the  Continental 
Reformers  and  secede  from  the  Church  ;  or 
did  we,  despite  the  many  errors  into  which  we 
fell,  still  remain  a  part  of  the  great  Church 
Catholic  ? 

When  we  consider  the  Elizabethan  Settle- 


ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING  47 


ment  the  truth  is  forced  upon  us  that  the 
reaction  against  Rome,  inevitable  though  it 
was  after  the  preceding  reign  of  terror,  was 
accompanied  by  a  reaction  against  much  else 
that  was  Catholic  ;  and  so  violent  was  the 
swing  of  the  pendulum  that  the  Maryan 
bishops  reaffirmed  the  Roman  allegiance  of 
the  previous  six  years,  and  departed  in  a  body. 

But  it  so  happened  that  some  of  the  bishops 
who  had  been  bishops  in  England  when  the 
Church  was  undivided  remained  bishops  in 
England  when  England  was  divided  from  the 
more  powerful  part  of  the  Church  in  Rome. 
Thus  it  was  possible  to  carry  on  the  episcopate 
without  any  breach  in  the  apostolic  suc¬ 
cession  ;  for  the  machinery  was  there  ready  to 
hand. 

It  is  obviously  impossible  here  to  investigate 
detail  in  the  rights  and  wrongs  of  the  con¬ 
troversy,  still  from  time  to  time  resuscitated 
in  certain  Roman  quarters,  regarding  the 
validity  of  A\nglican  orders,  Archbishop 
Parker’s  consecration,  the  Nag’s  Head  fable, 
and  the  like.  Rome,  it  would  seem,  is  the 
only  part  of  Christendom  to-day  which  has 


48  ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING 


any  scruples  about  admitting  that  our  orders 
are  valid ;  and  even  among  our  Roman 
brethren  there  is  reason  to  believe  that 
these  scruples  are  by  no  means  unanimously 
held. 

The  great  Orthodox  Church  has  long  since, 
in  her  relations  with  Anglicans,  very  practically 
shown  that  she,  at  any  rate,  entertains  no 
doubts  in  the  matter  ;  and  one  can  only  hope 
that  the  recent  pronouncements  from  Con¬ 
stantinople  1  and  Jerusalem  will  be  followed 
by  a  similar  pronouncement  from  Rome. 

There  is,  however,  abundant  literature  on 
both  sides  for  those  who  are  interested  in  the 
question ;  and  anyone  who  still  entertains 
doubts  on  the  subject  would  do  well  to  study  it. 

1  On  July  22nd,  1922,  the  Holy  Synod  of  the  (Ecu¬ 
menical  Patriarchate  in  Constantinople  passed  a  Declara¬ 
tion  (the  Declaration  of  Constantinople)  accepting  the 
validity  of  Anglican  orders.  The  (Ecumenical  Patriarch, 
Meletios  IV,  thereupon  sent  an  encyclical  letter  to  the  other 
patriarchs,  a  translation  of  which  was  published  in  full 
in  the  Church  Times  on  September  8th,  1922.  The 
concluding  paragraph  ran  as  follows  : 

“  Our  Holy  Synod,  therefore,  came  to  an  opinion  accept¬ 
ing  the  validity  of  the  Anglican  priesthood,  and  has 
decided  that  its  conclusion  should  be  announced  to  the 
other  Holy  Orthodox  Churches,  in  order  that  occasion 
might  be  given  them  also  to  express  their  opinion,  so  that 
the  mind  of  the  orthodox  world  on  this  important 
question  might  be  known.” 

As  a  result  of  this  letter,  Mgr.  Damianos,  Orthodox 


ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING  49 


I  will,  then,  merely  say  in  passing  that  since 
England,  unlike  Scotland,  still  preserved  the 
Episcopal  form  of  government,  and  with  it  all 
those  sacerdotal  offices  which  alone  can  make 
an  administration  of  the  sacraments  possible, 
the  care  taken  to  preserve  these  offices  would 
seem  rather  purposeless  unless  accompanied 
by  an  intention  that  they  should  be  valid  ;  and 
since  the  machinery  was  clearly  there  where¬ 
with  to  hand  on  the  Catholic  continuity  un¬ 
broken,  there  is,  quite  apart  from  the  historical 
evidence  to  that  effect,  a  strong  presumption 
that  this  machinery  was  brought  into  play. 

History  affords  us  ample  evidence  that  it  was, 
but  even  if  history  were  silent  on  the  subject, 


Patriarch  of  Jerusalem,  has  since  sent  a  communication 
addressed  “  To  His  Grace  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
First  Hierarch  of  all  England,  our  most  beloved  and  dear 
brother  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  Mgr.  Randall,”  which 
was  received  by  the  Archbishop  in  March  of  this  year. 
In  the  course  of  this  letter  His  Holiness  states  that  “  the 
Holy  Synod  of  Our  Patriarchate  .  .  .  after  examining 
this  question  under  our  presidency  from  all  its  aspects, 
resolved  that  the  consecration  of  bishops  and  ordination 
of  priests  and  deacons  of  the  Anglican  Episcopal  Church 
are  considered  by  the  Orthodox  Church  as  having  the 
same  validity  which  the  orders  of  the  Roman  Church 
have,  because  there  exist  all  the  elements  which  are 
considered  necessary  from  an  orthodox  point  of  view  for 
the  recognition  of  the  grace  of  the  Holy  Orders  from 
Apostolic  Succession. ” 


D 


50  ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING 


I  should  still  maintain  that,  in  the  absence  of 
evidence  of  any  contrary  intention,  it  is  for 
Rome  to  rebut  this  presumption  by  proof  to 
the  contrary  ;  and  this  she  has  not  so  far 
succeeded  in  doing. 

Our  continuity,  then,  with  the  old  Church 
remained  unbroken  ;  the  only  breach  was  with 
one  schismatic  part  of  it  which  has  usurped  to 
itself,  as  a  part,  an  authority  which  we  main¬ 
tained  could  only  be  vested  in  the  Church  as 
a  whole.  Our  priests  remained  true  priests, 
and  our  bishops  remained  true  bishops.  The 
sacraments  were  safeguarded  to  us  ;  and  there 
seemed  no  reason  why  the  religious  life  of  the 
people  should  not  continue  as  before  the  Maryan 
interregnum. 

The  pity  is  that  history  will  not  let  us  leave 
it  at  that.  The  intentions  were  so  good — the 
results  so  bad.  Mary  Tudor  had  burnt  into 
us  such  a  hatred  of  Rome,  which  was  only 
equalled  by  our  loathing  of  Spain,  at  that  time 
Rome’s  most  active  secular  champion,  that 
by  an  almost  unavoidable  concatenation  of 
ideas  we  looked  from  the  Spanish  Armada  to 
the  Spanish  Inquisition,  from  the  Spanish 


ENGLAND'S  REAWAKENING  51 


Inquisition  to  the  Roman  See  that  sanctioned 
it,  from  Roman  Catholicism  to  Catholicism 
generally — and  vowed  that  we  would  have  none 
of  these  things.  And  because  Rome  was  more 
powerful,  and  Roman  Catholics  more  plentiful, 
we  got  it  into  our  muddle-headed  English  minds 
that  anything  Catholic  must  necessarily  be  pa¬ 
pist.  Rome  was  Catholic,  therefore  Catholic  was 
Rome  :  we  lumped  them  together,  and  loathed 
them  both.  We  not  only  stripped  ourselves 
of  the  errors  of  Rome,  we  stripped  ourselves  of 
many  of  the  truths  of  Catholicism.  From  the 
fear  of  being  forced  to  believe  too  much  we  fell 
into  the  fallacy  of  believing  too  little.  It 
almost  seemed,  indeed,  as  though  we  had  fallen 
out  of  the  frying-pan  into  the  fire  ;  but  in 
reality  that  puts  it  just  the  wrong  way  round  : 
we  left  the  fire  and  fell  into  a  very  hot  frying- 
pan — not  a  comfortable  place  into  which  to 
fall.  But  where  the  fire  would  have  consumed 
us,  the  frying-pan  only  singed  us — singed  us 
of  many  of  the  truths  of  Catholicism. 

The  spirit  of  this  Catholicism  did,  it  is  true, 
make  one  or  two  spasmodic  and  ineffectual 
attempts  to  raise  itself  from  the  tomb  into  which 


52  ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING 

Mary  had  relegated  it  ;  but  the  history  of  the 
country  did  not  give  it  a  chance.  On  the 
devastating  details  of  that  history,  where  space 
is  so  circumscribed,  it  is  impossible  to  dwell. 
One  cannot  explore  every  inch  of  the  road : 
one  can  only  point  to  a  few  of  the  milestones. 
And  those  milestones  stand  out  clear,  recording 
a  strange  conspiracy  of  circumstances  of  which 
it  is  sometimes  said  in  extenuation  that  they 
helped  to  make  England  what  it  is.  It  may 
be  doubted,  however,  whether  this  is  alto¬ 
gether  a  cause  for  rejoicing.  The  Crom¬ 
wellian  visitation  ;  the  martyrdom  of  Arch¬ 
bishop  Laud ;  the  juxtaposition  of  Roman 
Catholicism  to  European  politics  ;  the  illogical, 
but,  considering  what  the  country  had  suffered, 
the  not-altogether-unnatural,  belief  that  any 
spiritual  trend  in  the  direction  of  Catholicism 
was  but  a  cunningly-devised  stepping-stone 
towards  the  dreaded  political  domination  of 
Rome ;  a  fresh  taste  of  the  perils  of  such 
domination  under  James  II. ’s  ill-starred  reign  ; 
liberation  in  the  person  of  a  Protestant  prince, 
who,  having  freed  England  finally  from  the 
thraldom  of  Rome,  as  his  grandsire  had  freed 


ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING  53 


Holland  from  the  cruel  yoke  of  Spain,  brought 
all  the  stern  traditions  of  a  Protestant  house, 
the  redoubtable  house  of  Orange-Nassau,  to 
the  English  throne  which  he  shared  with  a 
Stuart  queen  ;  and  then  a  long  dynasty  of 
Hanoverian  Protestants — all  these  things  mili¬ 
tated  against  us,  until  it  would  seem  that  only 
by  a  miracle  could  the  spirit  of  Catholicism  rise 
up  again. 

And  then,  quite  suddenly,  the  miracle 
happened — if,  indeed,  one  can  account  it  a 
miracle  that  when  God  has  deposited  His 
Truth  in  a  Church,  no  power  of  man  can  cause 
it  to  perish.  Its  manifestations  may  be 
obscured  for  a  space,  and  in  England  they  most 
certainly  were  ;  but  this  must  almost  inevitably 
be  the  case  when  religion  is  so  inextricably 
interwoven  with  politics,  and  when  a  country 
passes  through  those  political  vicissitudes 
which  for  so  long  reacted  on  the  religious  life 
of  England. 

It  is  true  that  we  did  not  use  all  the  sacra¬ 
ments  that  were  our  heritage,  and  those  which 
we  did  use  we  did  not  understand  ;  but  it  is 
also  true,  and  so  significant  that  it  cannot  be 


54  ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING 


regarded  as  mere  accident,  that  as  soon  as  the 
political  position  of  the  country  was  more 
stabilised,  and  the  fear  of  Rome  had  receded 
a  little  more  into  the  background — as  soon,  in 
a  word,  as  the  religious  life  was  free  to  take 
its  course  without  reference  to  international 
complications  and  alliances — the  spirit  of 
Catholicism  emerged  from  the  tomb  where  it 
had  been  keeping  such  an  anxious  and  im¬ 
patient  vigil. 

For  three  hundred  years  that  vigil  was  kept ; 
and  then,  getting  on  for  a  century  ago,  a 
movement  began  in  the  University  of 
Oxford.  Of  the  men  of  that  movement — 
Pusey,  Newman,1  Keble,  and  many  others — it 


1  The  great  service  which  Newman  rendered  to  the 
Anglican  community  is  apt  to  be  minimised  in  the  light 
of  his  subsequent  defection  to  Rome  ;  but  this  is  illogical, 
and  very  unjust.  It  has  been  said,  indeed,  that  to  the 
end  he  remained  an  Anglican  at  heart.  The  statement  is 
sweeping,  but  like  many  of  its  kind,  it  contains  within  it 
a  modicum  of  truth.  Whatever  brand  of  Catholicism 
Newman’s  was,  it  very  definitely  was  not  the  Catholicism 
of  the  Ultramontane  Romanist  :  it  was  pre- tridentine 
rather  than  post-tridentine,  and  as  such  it  certainly  bore 
a  closer  spiritual  analogy  to  the  Anglican  attitude  than 
to  the  Roman.  Newman’s  outlook  was  pre-tridentine, 
but  his  environment  was  post-tridentine  ;  and  this 
possibly  explains  the  fact  that  though  as  an  Anglican  his 
intellect  was  free,  as  a  Roman  he  found  it  continually  in 
fetters. 

Those  fetters  imposed  by  an  intolerant  authority,  even 


ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING  55 


is  not  necessary  to  speak  ;  their  work  speaks 
for  them.  That  movement  was  called  the 
“  Oxford  Movement  ”  ;  now  it  is  something 
much  more  than  a  movement,  and  something 
very  much  greater  than  Oxford.  It  may 
almost  be  called  England’s  Reawakening. 

Very  briefly,  and  in  popular  phraseology, 
this  was  its  argument  :  Every  member  of  the 
Church  of  England  repeats  every  Sunday, 
piously,  in  the  creed  :  “  I  believe  in  the  Holy 
Catholic  Church.”  It  seems  rather  incon¬ 
sistent  that,  when  he  comes  out  of  church,  he 
should  damn  Catholicism,  and  call  himself  a 
Protestant.  But  the  trouble  lies  very  much 
deeper  than  that.  The  individual  Churchman 


when  he  was  a  prince  of  the  Church,  his  spirit  revolted 
against.  In  his  own  words,  it  “  puts  a  great  obex  upon 
my  writing  ”  ;  and  he  likens  this  constant  interference 
with  his  opinion  to  “  the  pat  of  a  lion’s  paw.”  "  This  age 
of  the  Church  is  peculiar,”  writes  Newman  ;  “in  former 
times,  primitive  or  medieval,  there  was  not  the  extreme 
centralisation  which  is  now  in  force.  If  a  private 
theologian  said  anything  free,  another  answered  him.  .  .  . 
Now,  if  I  as  a  private  priest  put  anything  into  print, 
propaganda  answers  me  at  once.  How  can  I  fight  with 
such  a  chain  on  my  arm  ?  It  is  like  the  Persians  driven 
to  fight  under  the  lash  !  There  was  true  private  judgment 
in  the  primitive  and  medieval  schools  ;  there  are  no 
schools  now,  no  private  judgment  (in  the  religious  sense 
of  the  phrase),  no  freedom,  that  is,  of  opinion.  There  is 
no  exercise  of  the  intellect.” — Life  of  Newman,  by  Wilfred 
Ward,  vol.  i.,  p.  588.  < 


56  ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING 


may  call  himself  Protestant  as  much  as  he 
likes.  He  may,  if  he  chooses,  call  himself  a 
Pragmatist.  But  that  cannot  prevent  the  Church 
he  belongs  to  being,  by  continuity  and  sequence, 
an  integral  part  of  the  Great  Church  Catholic. 

Because  the  Reformers  disassociated  them¬ 
selves,  very  rightly,  from  the  errors  and 
excesses  of  the  Medicis  and  Borgias  in  the 
fifteenth  and  sixteenth  centuries,  why  should 
they  also  have  disassociated  themselves  from 
the  teaching  of  S.  Francis  of  Assisi  in  the 
twelfth  ?  That  teaching  and  doctrine  had 
continued  unchanged  from  the  earliest  recorded 
times,  as  we  can  read  for  ourselves  in  the 
extant  writings  of  the  Early  Fathers. 

There  is  not  a  denomination  calling  itself 
Christian  which  does  not  look  back  with 
reverence  and  wonder  to  the  piety  of  the  lives 
in  the  primitive  Church.  Is  it  not  possible 
that  the  piety  of  their  lives  was  in  some 
measure  due  to  the  truth  of  their  doctrine  ? 
They  were  clearly  very  much  nearer  to  the  time 
of  Christ  in  the  second  and  third  centuries 
than  we  are  to-day.  Is  it  not  possible, also,  that 
they  were  nearer  to  the  mind  of  Christ  than 


ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING  57 


either  the  Reformers  of  the  sixteenth  century 
or  ourselves  of  the  nineteenth  ? 

But,  we  are  told,  living  so  long  ago,  they 
must  necessarily  have  been  ignorant  and 
superstitious  men — nearly  as  ignorant  as  the 
disciples  of  Christ.  If  we,  in  our  modern 
evolution  and  wisdom,  have  progressed  so  far 
from  them,  we  must  still  further  have  pro¬ 
gressed  from  Christ.  If  the  century  we  live 
in  is  the  standard  of  faith,  Christ  was  clearly 
behind  the  times. 

But  if  we  believe  that  God,  and  His  incarna¬ 
tion  in  Christ,  is  behind  the  times  in  a  different 
sense,  is  the  Precursor  and  Creator  of  all  time, 
must  we  not,  in  all  honesty  and  humility, 
reflect  upon  the  history  of  the  Church  which  He 
founded  ?  The  Sacrifice  1  of  the  Mass,  for  ex¬ 
ample,  the  Sacrament  of  Penance,  are  these 
things  necessarily  wrong  because  we  have  grown 


1  That  the  Mass  or  Holy  Eucharist  was  from  the 
earliest  times  regarded  in  the  light  of  a  sacrifice  is  abun¬ 
dantly  clear.  It  is  twice  referred  to  as  such  in  the  Teaching 
of  the  Apostles,  as  also  it  is  by  S.  Justin  Martyr  (c.  150), 
who  points  out  the  parallel  between  the  Jewish  oblation 
of  fine  flour  and  “  the  bread  of  the  Eucharist  which  Our 
Lord  gave  us  to  offer  for  a  memorial  of  the  Passion  ” 
(Dial.  41).  Some  fifty  years  earlier  the  place  where  this 
Eucharist  service  wTas  held  had  been  described  by  St. 


58  ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING 

too  cultured  to  believe  in  them  as  these 
ignorant  early  Christians  taught  them  ?  Can 
we  not  restore  Catholic  practice  to  a  Church 
that  is,  in  its  essence,  Catholic  ? 

Such,  briefly,  was  the  aim  of  the  Oxford 
Movement :  an  attempt  to  restore  this  unhappy 
country  to  the  Faith  which,  in  common  with  the 
rest  of  Christendom,  it  had  cherished  unchanged 
for  centuries  before  Rome,  mainly  through 
political  ambition,  had  fallen  into  error  in  one 
direction,  and  we,  partly  as  a  result  of  a  too- 
violent  reaction  from  Rome,  and  partly  as  a 
result  of  fear,  had  fallen  into  error  in  another. 
And  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  everything 
which  the  Oxford  Movement  claimed  for  the 
Church  in  this  country  finds  full  justification 
in  that  Church’s  history. 


Ignatius  as  the  "  place  of  sacrifice  ”  ;  and  from  the  fourth 
century  onwards  the  service  itself  was  known  generally 
throughout  Christendom  as  “  the  Mass.” 

But  to  explain  the  inner  meaning  of  this,  or,  indeed 
any  other  Catholic  doctrine,  is  the  work  of  theologians  ; 
and  by  theologians  the  whole  doctrine  of  the  Mass  has 
been  treated  exhaustively.  As  a  layman,  writing  for 
laymen,  I  merely  wish  to  emphasise  that  the  sacrifice 
which  to-day,  in  the  Mass,  every  Catholic  priest  offers  to 
God  throughout  the  whole  world,  is  identical  with  that 
to  which,  in  the  second  century,  S.  Irenaeus  referred  as 
“  the  new  oblation  of  the  new  covenant,  which  the  Church, 
receiving  from  the  Apostles,  offers  to  God  throughout  the 
whole  world  ”  (Vol.  iv.,  chap,  xviii.,  p.  i.) 


ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING  59 


People  to-day,  however,  seldom  trouble  to 
read  Church  history,  partly,  no  doubt,  because 
history  bores  them  (which,  though  unfortunate, 
is  quite  understandable),  and  partly  because 
the}7  do  not  realise  that  although  religion  is  of 
course  primarily  a  thing  of  the  heart,  it  is 
also,  to  some  extent,  a  thing  of  the  head. 
History  is  so  prosaic  they  say,  but  religion  is 
a  spiritual  thing ;  how,  then,  can  the  two 
have  any  connection  ? 

Yet  Christ  is  Himself  a  historical  fact ; 
the  Church  which  He  founded  is  a  historical 
development ;  and  we,  as  heirs  by  descent  from 
that  Church,  are  in  the  faith  we  profess  no  more 
and  no  less  than  a  historical  fulfilment.  And 
if  certain  modern  theologians  had  carried  their 
contempt  and  ignorance  of  all  things  historical 
to  its  logical  conclusion,  none  of  us  to-day, 
in  this  twentieth  century,  would  have  heard 
the  interesting  historical  scandal  that,  nearly 
two  thousand  years  ago,  a  strange  person 
walked  along  the  shores  of  Galilee  and  called 
Himself  the  Son  of  God. 

Now  I  think  the  most  present  and  paramount 
ideal  of  the  leaders  of  the  Oxford  Movement, 


6o  ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING 


as  it  is  with  their  Anglo-Catholic  descendants 
to-day,  was  the  ideal  of  unity — one  fold  and 
one  Shepherd.  We  look  upon  the  Church  as 
the  Body  of  Christ,  and  we  see  it  divided 
limb  from  limb.  Some  limbs  have  cut  them¬ 
selves  off  from  the  Body,  and  so  are  robbed  of 
much  of  their  strength.  Others,  although  still 
a  part  of  the  Body,  are  so  eaten  up  with  the 
twin  diseases  of  error  and  schism  that  half 
their  strength  is  eaten  up  too.  And  this  not 
only  causes  weakness  to  the  Body  but  it 
prevents  outsiders  coming  to  the  Body,  and 
partaking  of  the  bread  of  eternal  life. 

God  speaks  with  one  Voice,  not  with  a  dozen. 
Christ  ordered  His  disciples  to  go  out  into  all 
nations  and  spread  the  message  of  His  King¬ 
dom,  and  if  this  message  is  delivered  in  a  dozen 
different  voices,  which  is  the  unfortunate 
heathen  to  believe  ?  He  often  ends  by  be¬ 
lieving  none  of  them. 

How  this  unity  is  to  be  effected  is  the 
problem  which  to-day,  more,  surely,  than  ever 
before,  is  exercising  the  thoughts  of  all  earnest- 
minded  men  ;  it  is  only  about  the  methods 
upon  which  they  differ.  It  well  may  be, 


ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING  61 


though  one  does  not  lay  this  down  with  any 
certainty  of  prophecy,  that  before  we  can 
have  reunion  with  outside  Christendom,  we 
must  first  have  unity  in  our  own  camp  ;  and 
this  is  what  the  Oxford  Movement  paved  the 
way  for.  It  is  premature  yet  to  say  that  it 
has  succeeded  ;  but  if  we  look  at  the  work  of 
the  Anglo-Catholic  congresses  and  conferences 
we  must  admit  that  it  has  made  very  great 
strides. 

But  one  point  must  be  made  clear.  The 
object  of  the  Oxford  Movement  was  not  to 
make  the  Church  of  England  Catholic.  It  is 
Catholic,  and  it  always  was  Catholic,  and 
nothing  can  make  it  anything  else.  Its  object 
was  to  make  all  Churchmen  realise  the  true 
Catholic  character  of  the  Church  they  belong  to. 
Once  that  realisation  is  brought  home  to 
Churchmen,  all  matters  of  doctrine  fall  into 
line  like  fingers  in  a  well-fitting  glove. 

It  is  idle  to  talk  about  matters  of  doctrine 
dividing  us  :  what  divides  us  is  our  different 
conceptions  of  the  constitution  and  character  of 
the  Church  itself.  And  for  that  reason  I  do 
not  intend  to  discuss  our  so-called  doctrinal 


62  ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING 


differences,  except  in  one  passing  reference  to 
the  Sacrament  of  Penance.  And  I  only  mention 
this  because  I  think  the  two  conflicting  attitudes 
towards  it  are  illustrative  of  the  two  conflicting 
attitudes  towards  the  Church — assuming,  of 
course,  as  I  have  assumed  throughout,  that 
by  the  Church  is  meant  a  visible  society  founded 
by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  to  which  by  some 
outward  and  visible  sign  its  members  pledge 
their  whole-hearted  allegiance,  and  of  which 
Ecclesia  Anglicana  claims  to  be  a  part. 

For  some  reason  or  other  exception  is  taken 
to  the  Sacrament  of  Penance  more  strongly 
than  to  any  other  Catholic  doctrine.  So  often 
those  members  among  us  who  call  themselves 
Protestants  say  in  effect  :  “We  are  willing  to 
accept  all  your  claims,  but  we  cannot  agree  to 
auricular  confession.  Cannot  you,  in  your 
turn,  meet  us  half-way,  and  give  this  horrible 
practice  up  ?  The  Bible  says  there  is  one 
Mediator  between  God  and  man,  the  Man 
Christ  Jesus  ;  and  we  honestly  feel  that  in  the 
confessional  the  priest  comes  between  you  and 
your  God.” 

Our  reply  to  this  can  only  be  :  “  We  dare 


ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING  63 


not  give  up  this  thing,  for  we  hold  it  to  be 
a  fundamental  truth  of  Catholicism ;  and  the 
very  fact  of  your  asking  us  to  do  so  shows  that 
you  do  not  accept  our  claims,  for  you  are 
asking  us  to  run  counter  to  the  whole  united 
authority  of  the  Church.  You  don’t  feel,  do 
you,  when  you  eat  your  meals  that  your  fork 
comes  between  you  and  your  food  ?  If  you 
were  an  aboriginal,  and  had  never  seen  a  fork, 
you  might  perhaps  find  it  a  cumbersome 
weapon.  But  that  is  hardly  the  fault  of  the 
fork.  The  absolution  of  the  priest  simply 
sanctifies  our  repentance,  and  transcends  our 
sorrow  into  a  sacrament.  It  is  just  as  useful, 
in  its  way,  as  the  fork  :  for  man,  in  the  first 
place,  created  the  fork,  but  God  created  the 
Sacrament  of  Penance. 

“It  is  quite  true,  as  you  say,  that  S.  Paul 
tells  us  that  there  is  one  Mediator  between 
God  and  man,  the  Man  Christ  Jesus.  And  so 
there  is.  But  if  you  take  a  text  quite  literally, 
and  apart  from  its  context,  you  can  prove 
anything.  Yet  you  yourselves  do  not  take 
even  this  text  quite  literally.  You  would 
surely,  if  a  friend  were  to  ask  you,  mediate 


64  ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING 


between  him  and  his  God,  if  you  like  so 
to  put  it,  by  remembering  him  in  your 
prayers  ?  It  is  rather  hard,  is  it  not,  to 
accuse  us  of  not  taking  a  text  quite  literally 
if  you  happen  to  disagree  with  us,  when  you 
yourselves  do  not  take  the  same  text  literally 
when  you  happen  to  disagree  with  the  text  ? 

“  We  dare  not  give  up  the  Sacrament  of 
Penance  when  the  whole  authority  of  the 
Church  would  damn  us.  You  say  the  Church 
is  wrong.  We  can  only  reply  with  all  humility 
that  we  think  the  Church  is  less  likely  to  be 
wrong  than  you  are.  But  even  taking  it  on 
its  lowest  ground,  the  Church  has  really  a  very 
good  case.  Christ  said  to  His  disciples  :  ‘  Re¬ 
ceive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost  :  Whosesoever  sins 
ye  remit,  they  are  remitted  unto  them  ;  and 
whosesoever  sins  ye  retain,  they  are  retained.’ 
Christ  would  hardly  have  given  His  disciples 
this  power  if  it  had  been  wrong  for  the  laity 
to  take  advantage  of  it. 

“  But,  you  argue,  although  Christ  gave  it 
to  His  disciples,  He  did  not  intend  it  to  go 
any  further  ;  and  this,  quite  apart  from  the 
fact  that  the  world  to-day  has  just  as  much 


ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING  65 

need  of  remission  from  sin  as  it  had  in  Christ’s 
day,  shows  how  fundamentally  we  disagree  : 
for  we  believe  that  what  Christ  ordered  then 
He  ordered  for  always  ;  that  He  gave  His 
Church  her  constitution  for  all  time — and  that 
no  man  has  power  to  alter  it.” 

This,  I  think,  illustrates  the  fundamental 
difference  between  the  Catholic  standpoint 
and  the  Protestant.  The  Catholic  affirms  the 
authority  of  the  Church,  the  Protestant  denies 
it.  The  Catholic  maintains  that  Christ  founded 
His  Church,  and  gave  to  it  a  constitution  which 
remains  the  same  yesterday,  to-day,  and  for 
ever.  The  Protestant  maintains  that  although 
Christ  founded  the  Church — and  he  claims 
to  belong  to  it — its  constitution  and  practice 
can  change  down  the  ages,  and  that  the  con¬ 
stitution  mapped  out  by  the  Elizabethan 
politicians  had  power  to  override  anything 
that  preceded  it  ;  and  that  its  intention  was 
different  from  anything  that  had. 

While  there  are  these  two  different  con¬ 
ceptions  of  what  the  Church  of  England  is,  it 
is  impossible  to  find  agreement  about  what  the 
Church  of  England  may  do.  Complete  unity 


60  ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING 


within  her  ranks  can  only  be  reached  when 
the  Oxford  Movement  has  permeated  them 
throughout ;  but  the  Anglo-Catholic  position 
is  clearly  established.  And  just  as  the  existence 
of  authority  is  the  root  of  our  disagreement 
with  those  Catholics  in  the  Church  of  England 
who  deny  they  are  Catholics,  so  the  seat  of 
authority  is  the  reason  for  our  disagreement 
with  those  Catholics  who  owe  their  allegiance 
to  Rome. 

Anglo-Catholicism  denies,  as  the  Eastern 
Church  denies,  that  authority  is  vested  in  the 
person  of  the  Pope  as  distinct  from  the  whole 
body  of  the  Church  in  council.  We  affirm,  on 
the  contrary,  that  the  only  true  authority 
resides  in  the  Church  as  a  whole,  and  that  its 
expression  is  through  her  representatives  at 
oecumenical  councils,  although,  I  think,  there 
could  be  no  objection  to  authority,  so  pro¬ 
ceeding,  being  promulgated  to  Christendom, 
at  His  Holiness’s  discretion,  by  the  Pope 
as  the  Church’s  official  mouthpiece.  Con¬ 
sequently,  except  on  some  interpretation  such 
as  this,  we  are  unable  to  accept,  in  its  present 
form,  the  Papal  Infallibility  Decree  of  1871. 


ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING  67 


We  regard  that  decree  as  the  logical  outcome 
of  Rome’s  steadily-growing  trend  towards 
Ultramontanism,  which,  since  the  Council  of 
Trent  1  in  the  sixteenth  century,  has  done 
more  perhaps  than  anything  else  to  keep  her 
isolated  from  the  rest  of  Christendom,  and 
which  found  its  expression  during  the  nine¬ 
teenth  century  in  the  person  of  Pope  Pius  IX, 
His  syllabus  complectus  prcecipuos  nostra 
cetatis  err  ores,  which  his  successor,  Leo  XIII., 


1  That  the  Council  of  Trent  betokened  a  reformation 
as  revolutionary  in  effect,  though  different  in  scope,  in  the 
Church  of  Rome  as  the  one  which  preceded  it  in  the  Church 
of  England,  is  a  fact  so  significant  that  it  has  eluded  the 
vigilance  of  many  historians.  Yet  the  Roman  Catholic 
historian,  Acton,  whose  works  have  not  yet,  so  far  as  I 
know,  been  placed  on  the  Index  Expurgatorius,  wrote  over 
three  centuries  later  :  “  The  Council  of  Trent  imposed  on 
the  Church  the  stamp  of  an  intolerant  age,  and  perpetuated 
by  its  decrees  the  spirit  of  an  austere  immorality.” 

Those  who  are  familiar  with  the  lives,  say,  of  Erasmus 
and  the  Caraffa  Pope,  Paul  IV.,  will  see  in  their  respective 
attitudes  the  vide  divergence  of  outlook  between  pre¬ 
tridentine  Catholicism  and  post-tridentine  Romanism ; 
and  between  the  two  there  is  a  great  gulf  fixed.  Erasmus, 
who  with  full  authority  of  Church  and  Pope,  was  the 
accredited  champion  of  the  Catholic  Faith  as  against 
Protestant  innovations  in  both  cis-Alpine  and  trans-Alpine 
Europe,  preached  a  tolerant  Catholicism,  which,  by  allowing 
men  free  access  to  education  and  knowledge,  would  ultimate 
ly  guide  them  into  all  truth.  Caraffa  was  the  exponent  of 
the  Inquisition  and  the  Index,  and  by  that  Index  the  works 
of  Erasmus  were  subsequently  banned.  These  two 
attitudes  form  a  just  parallel  between  the  attitudes  of 
Anglicanism  and  Romanism  to-day.  And  the  one  is  pre- 
iridentine  ;  the  other  post-tridentine. 


68  ENGLAND'S  REAWAKENING 


was  at  pains  to  uphold,  shows  clearly  the 
retrograde  influence  this  ultramontane  ten¬ 
dency  had  exercised.  One  short  passage  may  be 
quoted  as  sufflcient  to  illustrate  its  reactionary 
scope :  “  The  Pontiff  never  can  be,  nor 

ought  to  be,  reconciled  with  progress,  lib¬ 
eralism,  and  modern  civilisation.”  Yet  this 
Pontiff,  who  regarded  progress,  liberalism  and 
modern  civilisation  as  evils  with  which  he 
could  have  no  truck  ;  who,  in  a  pontificate 
which  lasted  for  thirty-two  years,  quarrelled 
with  all  the  principal  countries  in  Europe  and 
forfeited  thereby  his  temporal  power,  suc¬ 
ceeded  in  inducing  the  Vatican  Council  to  vote 
to  him,  and  his  successors,  an  unqualified 
Infallibility  in  supreme  pronouncements  in 
doctrine,  an  immediate  and  sovereign  juris¬ 
diction  over  all  the  pastors  and  laity  in  the 
Church,  and  a  supreme  and  unimpeachable 
arbitrament  in  all  matters  appertaining  to 
faith  and  morals. 

Further,  the  documents  of  the  Vatican 
Council  clearly  show  that  the  Infallibility 
Decree  was  intended  only  as  a  stepping-stone 
to  a  further  decree  that  the  doctrine  of 


ENGLAND'S  REAWAKENING  69 


temporal  power  should  be  regarded  as  a  re¬ 
vealed  article  of  faith.  Fortunately,  however, 
Pius's  pontificate  came  to  a  close  before  this 
preposterous  paradox  could  be  imposed  upon 
Christendom  :  it  was  easier  for  a  camel  to  go 
through  the  eye  of  a  needle,  than  for  a  rich  man 
to  enter  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  yet  it  was  to 
be  impossible  for  the  faithful  to  enter  that 
kingdom  unless  they  sought  to  see  Christ’s 
vicar  upon  earth  imbued  with  temporal  power 
— a  power  resurrected  upon  all  that  medieval 
pomp  and  richness  of  possession  which  were 
in  such  flagrant  opposition  to  the  teaching  of 
Christ,  and  the  poverty  and  humility  of  the 
first  bishops  of  the  Church. 

Quite  apart,  therefore,  from  our  objections 
to  Papal  Infallibility  as  at  present  interpreted, 
on  theological  grounds,  that  it  is  discounted 
by  the  earliest  historical  precedent,  and  is  a 
violation  of  the  true  Catholic  conception  of 
the  rightful  position  of  authority,  it  will  be 
seen  that  it  is,  in  itself,  exceedingly  dangerous. 
It  puts,  without  any  safeguard  or  check,  too 
much  power  in  the  hands  of  one  man,  whose 
pronouncements,  with  the  best  of  intentions, 


70  ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING 


must  necessarily  be  coloured,  as  in  the  case  of 
Pius,  by  the  tendencies  of  his  own  individual 
temperament.  That  a  pontiff,  who  professed 
so  stern  a  detachment  from  all  matters  con¬ 
nected  with  modern  civilisation,  should  claim 
to  be  the  supreme  arbitrator  over  the  faith 
and  morals  of  modern  civilisation  is  an  anomaly 
which  there  is  no  need  to  emphasise. 

Further,  the  doctrine,  as  interpreted  at 
present,  tends  to  be  subversive  of  unity,  and 
is,  in  many  men’s  minds,  perhaps  the  greatest 
stumbling-block  that  lies  on  the  road  to  re¬ 
union.  If  authority  is  only  to  be  found  in 
the  See  of  Peter,  there  is  only  authority  for 
those,  however  few  they  may  become,  who  are 
in  communion  with  the  See  of  Peter  ;  or,  to 
express  the  same  proposition  in  slightly  dif¬ 
ferent  terms,  certain  beliefs  would  ipso  facto 
become  obligatory  upon  the  whole  of  Christen¬ 
dom  which  Rome  herself  only  regarded  as  de 
fide  over  eighteen  hundred  years  after  the 
death  of  Christ  ;  and  although  many  Anglicans 
find  little  difficulty  in  accepting  the  doctrine, 
for  instance,  of  the  Immaculate  Conception, 
they  hesitate  to  regard  it  as  an  article  of 


ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING  71 


faith,  for  they  feel,  in  the  light  of  the  con¬ 
sidered  opinions  of  S.  Bernard  and  S. 
Thomas,  that  if  all  “  conscientious  objectors 
were  to  be  regarded  as  heretics,  they  would 
find  themselves  in  such  excellent  company. 

But  if  authority  is  to  be  found  in  the  whole 
Church  in  council,  there  is  every  inducement 
for  Christians  to  join  hands,  and  summon 
such  a  council.  And  when  one  thinks  of  a 
council  so  summoned,  and  looks  at  the  elec¬ 
tions  of  some  of  the  Popes  of  the  past,  it  is 
difficult  to  refrain  from  invidious  comparisons. 
Clement  II.,  Damascus  II.  and  Leo  IX. 
were  appointed  directly  by  the  Emperor,  a 
secular  prince  :  their  subsequent  acceptance 
by  the  rightful  electors  was  a  mere  farce,  and 
followed  as  a  matter  of  course. 

From  the  year  1059  onwards  a  right  of  veto 
by  secular  princes  was  officially  recognised, 
which  was  at  various  times  exercised  by  the 
governments  of  France,  Spain  and  Austria. 
Towards  the  close  of  the  last  century  the  late 
Emperor  Franz  Josef  availed  himself  of  it,  and 
opposed,  on  political  grounds,  the  election  of 
Cardinal  Rampollo,  after  he  had  already 


72  ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING 

received  a  certain  number  of  votes.  He  had 
not  been  elected  Pope,  it  is  true,  but  the  fact 
remains  that  however  many  votes  he  had 
received,  however  much  the  Holy  Spirit  might 
have  guided  the  deliberations  of  the  College  of 
Cardinals,  it  was  impossible  for  him  to  have 
been  elected  Pope  so  long  as  the  Emperor  of 
Austria  possessed  the  right  of  veto,  and  chose 
to  exercise  it. 

It  requires,  indeed,  a  good  deal  of  casuistry 
to  sustain  the  belief  that  for  something  over 
nine  hundred  years  (for  the  secular  veto  was 
abolished  by  that  same  Pius,  who  owed  his 
elevation  to  S.  Peter’s  see  to  it),  God  should 
have  chosen,  as  the  sole  vessel  of  His  divine 
revelation,  the  political  nominees  of  the  various 
warring  princes  of  Europe. 

On  the  question  of  authority,  then,  Anglo- 
Catholicism  joins  issue  with  both  Romanism 
and  Protestantism.  Its  attitude,  far  from 
being  a  compromise,  is  in  conformity  with  pure 
and  unadulterated  Catholic  tradition.  Its  justi¬ 
fication  is  in  the  history  of  the  great  Church 
Catholic,  and  its  claims  find  confirmation  in 
that  Church’s  records. 


ENGLAND'S  REAWAKENING  73 


But  it  may  very  reasonably  be  asked,  does 
this  recapitulation  of  ancient  controversies  get 
one  any  nearer  to  the  ideal  of  unity  ?  Can 
any  profitable  purpose  be  served  by  digging 
them  up  from  the  graves  of  history,  and 
burdening  men's  minds  with  them  anew  ? 

Painful  that  delving  must  necessarily  be, 
for  it  reveals  in  its  hideous  negation  of  charity 
what  is  perhaps  the  saddest  side  of  human 
nature — human  nature  which,  while  seeking 
in  the  service  of  religion  to  be  transcended  and 
sanctified  by  the  spirit  of  the  divine  Nature, 
yet  is  seen  all  down  the  ages,  on  the  Anglican 
side  no  less  than  on  the  Roman,  to  falter  and 
fall  and  become  a  stumbling-block  to  many. 
Painful  it  is  to  look  back  on  these  things,  and 
some  may  think  that  it  is  equally  profitless. 

And  yet,  after  the  most  earnest  and  prayer¬ 
ful  thought,  one  is,  I  think,  forced  to  the 
conclusion  that  it  is  impossible  ever  to  find 
agreement  in  the  future,  if  one  deliberately 
shirks  the  divisions  of  the  past.  With  the 
shame  and  sorrow  which  is  born  of  humility, 
Anglicans  do  open  penance  in  confessing  that 
there  have  been  many  grave  errors  in  their 


74  ENGLAND'S  REAWAKENING 


own  past  history.  Can  they,  then,  be  accused 
of  pharisaical  criticism,  or  a  lack  of  courtesy 
towards  their  Roman  brethren,  if  they  try  to 
point  out,  as  temperately  as  possible,  that 
there  have  been  irregularities  in  their  history 
also  ?  If  Anglicans  believe  that  there  have 
been  mutual  mistakes  and  mutual  misunder¬ 
standings — that  as  Protestantism  has  been  to 
the  Church  of  England,  so  Ultramontanism 
has  been  to  the  Church  of  Rome — is  it  not, 
indeed,  their  paramount  duty  to  do  their  best 
to  make  clear  their  grounds  for  believing  that 
the  fault  has  not  been  wholly  on  the  Anglican 
side  ? 

Let  us  be  quite  practical  about  the  matter. 
I  am  writing,  as  I  have  said  before,  primarily 
for  those  among  my  fellow-Churchmen  who 
have  not,  perhaps,  yet  had  the  opportunity  of 
realising  the  true  nature  of  their  Catholic 
heritage.  Assuming,  then, that  having  dragged 
them  through  this  sea  of  controversy,  they 
are  now  in  a  better  position  to  appreciate  the 
means  of  grace  which  their  Church  provides, 
and,  casting  aside  the  last  lingering  relic  of 
doubt,  to  look  forward  with  us  to  that  wider 


ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING  75 


horizon  of  the  unity  of  Christendom,  I  would 
ask  them  to  pause  for  a  moment  and  consider, 
if  Anglicans,  by  a  too-courteous  reticence,  are 
content,  in  so  far  as  Rome  is  concerned,  to 
let  their  case  go  by  default,  what  is  the  only 
remaining  alternative  ? 

Instead  of  the  one  Fold  and  one  Shepherd 
which  our  blessed  Lord  prayed  for — two  great 
rival  Churches  in  Christendom.  Anglicans 
hoping  vainly  for  concessions  from  Rome,  and 
Rome  hoping,  equally  vainly,  that  all  Anglicans 
will  make  ultimate  submission  to  her. 

And  what  exactly  is  involved  in  this  last 
proposition  ?  The  Church  of  England  ceases 
to  be.  Such  part  of  the  British  constitution 
(and  incidentally  the  monarchy  as  at  present 
established)  as  owes  its  validity  to  the  Act  of 
Settlement  is  unconditionally  scrapped.  And 
all  members  of  Ecclesia  Anglicana  are  com¬ 
pelled  to  deny,  what  Lord  Halifax  says  he 
would  rather  die  than  cast  a  doubt  upon — 
the  very  reality  of  the  sacraments  which  they 
have  received  all  their  life,  as  well  as  God’s  pur¬ 
pose  with  regard  to  the  Church  of  England. 

No  one  who  has  read  his  Call  to  Reunion — 


76  ENGLAND'S  REAWAKENING 


and  it  is  one  of  the  primary  purposes  of  these 
pages  that  those  who  have  not  done  so  may 
do  so  now — can,  in  the  wildest  flight  of  his 
fancy,  attribute  to  Lord  Halifax  the  bias  of 
blind  bigotry  with  regard  to  Rome  ;  and  yet 
he  tells  us  that  the  Church  to  whose  service  he 
has  dedicated  his  whole  life,  he  would  gladly 
lay  down  his  life  to  defend.  And  there  can  be 
little  question  but  that  his  example,  in  this 
respect,  would  be  followed  throughout  the 
length  and  breadth  of  our  land. 

I  lay  stress  on  this  point  because  one 
cannot  help  feeling  that  the  number  of  English 
people  who  are  received  each  year  into  the 
Church  of  Rome  may  encourage  her  repre¬ 
sentatives  in  this  country  to  believe  that  the 
Church  of  England  is  a  moribund  Church,  and 
that  in  course  of  time,  by  sheer  process  of 
elimination,  our  Church  will  die  a  natural 
death.  And,  if  this  be  so,  the  Vatican,  hearing 
these  glad  tidings  from  London,  may  prefer,  very 
reasonably,  a  future  surrender  than  strive  to 
work  for  a  present  rapprochement. 

But,  believe  me,  this  is  not  the  case.  Re¬ 
union  with  Rome,  Anglicans  desire  ardently, 


ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING  77 


but  so  certain  are  they  of  God’s  purposes  and 
promises  with  regard  to  their  Church,  that  they 
will  never  welcome  even  unity  over  that  Church’s 
dead  body.  To  admit  such  a  possibility  for  a 
moment  can  only  be  to  encourage  hopes  in¬ 
capable  of  fulfilment,  and  to  postpone  still 
longer  the  ideal  of  reunion. 

Quite  apart,  indeed,  from  the  divine  right 
of  Ecclesia  Anglicana,  if,  for  the  sake  of  brevity, 
I  may  use  that  expression,  I  do  not  think  that 
a  Church  which,  by  voluntary  contribution 
alone,  receives  in  one  year  over  ten  million 
pounds  from  a  people  impoverished  by  a  great 
war  can  possibly  be  diagnosed  as  in  a  dying 
condition.  On  the  surface,  at  any  rate,  it 
seems  scarcely  credible  that  their  sole  motive 
in  making  these  donations  was  to  defray  the 
expenses  of  their  Church’s  funeral. 

But  it  is  not  only  with  Rome  that  Anglicans 
seek  reunion  :  we  want  unity  all  round.  We 
want  it  with  the  great  Orthodox  Church  of  the 
East  ;  and  in  this  matter  the  events  of  the 
last  twelve  months  have  exceeded  the  op¬ 
timism  of  the  most  courageous  of  prophets 
[see  footnote,  pp.  48,  49].  We  want  it,  most 


78  ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING 


vitally,  in  our  own  ranks ;  and,  with  the 
spread  of  the  Anglo-Catholic  movement,  this  is 
steadily  gaining  ground  every  day.  And  we  also 
want  it  with  the  Scottish  Presbyterians,  and 
with  the  English  and  American  dissentingbodies. 

But  we  do  not  believe  that  a  polite  and  spas¬ 
modic  exchange  of  pulpit  is  likely  to  promote 
the  reunion  of  Christendom  any  more  than  a 
political  co-operation  can  be  established  by  a 
Liberal  inviting  a  Conservative  to  lunch. 
Neither  do  we  believe  that  Christian  reunion 
is  in  any  way  expedited  by  individual  members 
of  the  Church  of  England  seceding  and  joining 
the  Church  of  Rome.  Without  in  the  least 
impugning  the  good  faith  of  those  who  do  so, 
one  cannot  but  feel  that,  impatient  of  the 
difficulties  that  lie  nearest  at  home,  they  are, 
by  a  rather  fussy  exertion  of  their  own  private 
judgment,  trying  to  take  a  short-cut  to  their 
own  salvation — trying  to  precipitate,  for  their 
own  selfish  requirements  what,  for  the  majority, 
can  only  be  attained  by  patiently  waiting  upon 
God’s  good  providence.  For,  however  many, 
or  few,  her  members  may  be,  Ecclesia  Anglicana 
can  never  die. 


ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING  79 


From  time  to  time  the  Holy  See  and 
responsible  members  of  various  Catholic 
countries  have,  quite  spontaneously,  attributed 
to  the  British  people  many  sterling  Christian 
qualities.  Is  it  conceivable  that  these  qualities 
are  accompanied  by  a  black  blindness  of  heart 
which  is  destined  to  preclude  them  for  all 
time  from  partaking  fully  of  the  central  truths 
of  the  Christian  Faith  ?  Is  it  possible  that  a 
nation  which,  from  outside  testimony,  is  said 
to  be  so  generously  gifted  is  doomed,  in  the 
eyes  of  the  Holy  See,  to  remain  for  ever  a 
heretic  people  ?  Would  not  all  Christendom, 
and  Rome  herself,  be  immeasurably  the  gainer 
if  it  were  made  possible  in  the  near  future  for 
those  gifts  to  be  placed  as  unreservedly  at  the 
council-tables  of  a  united  Church  as  they  are 
being  placed  to-day  at  the  council-tables  of 
European  politics  ? 

The  world,  weary  after  a  great  war,  is  crying 
aloud  for  peace  and  good-will  as  between  in¬ 
dividuals  and  as  between  nations.  Is  the 
great  Christian  Church,  through  which  this 
divine  message  is  delivered  to  mankind,  alone  to 
hold  back  from  contributing  to  its  fulfilment  ? 


So  ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING 


One  must,  indeed,  be  cynically  minded  if  one 
can  believe  that  determined  and  repeated 
efforts  between  Anglicans  and  Romans  to  find 
some  basis  of  future  reunion  should  in  the  end 
be  barren  of  all  results.  It  would  perhaps  be 
too  much  to  expect  that  they  would  be  able 
to  see  eye  to  eye  with  each  other  over  their 
respective  interpretations  of  past  controversies. 
But  by  seeing  in  a  clearer  perspective  the 
different  historical  and  political  difficulties 
which  mutually  consolidated  their  different 
standpoints,  they  would  surely  each  gain  a 
better  understanding  of  how  logical,  as  viewed 
from  those  standpoints,  their  respective  in¬ 
terpretations  of  those  controversies  appeared. 
And,  without  in  any  way  sacrificing  the 
truths  of  Catholicism,  it  might  thus  be  possible 
to  find  some  basis  of  agreement  for  a  joint 
revision  of  the  past  definitions  in  which  those 
truths  find  their  expression. 

Truth,  we  know,  is  the  same  down  the  ages, 
and  the  truths  of  Catholicism  are  the  same 
down  the  ages ;  for  truth  is  absolute  and 
cannot  change.  But  language  is  relative,  and 
can,  and  does,  change.  Many  terms  which 


ENGLAND'S  REAWAKENING  81 


were  current  a  hundred  years  ago,  to-day  have 
become  practically  meaningless.  Many  ex¬ 
pressions  which  are  constantly  in  vogue  to-day, 
future  generations  will  find  unintelligible. 
Why,  then,  should  a  proposed  revision  of  the 
definitions  of  doctrine  be  thought  to  impugn 
the  doctrines  defined  ?  What  is  a  definition 
of  doctrine,  after  all,  but  an  attempt  to  bring 
the  infinite  truths  within  the  comprehension 
of  the  finite  mind. 

Yet  definitions  are  very  necessary,  just  as 
all  definitions  must  necessarily  be  imperfect. 
And  to  say  this  is  not  to  cast  any  slur  upon 
definitions  :  it  is  merely  another  way  of  saying 
that  a  definition  can  only  be  a  via  media 
between  the  divine  revelation  and  the  human 
comprehension.  The  message  is  divine  :  but  it 
can  only  find  expression  in  human  language ; 
and  for  such  a  purpose  language  must  always 
be  inadequate. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  defined  in  the 

Athanasian  Creed  ;  and  although  all  Christians 

believe  in  the  Trinity,  no  Christian  yet  has 

ever  understood  it.  Some  people,  by  denying 

that  the  Trinity  exists,  others  by  upbraiding 

F 


82  ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING 


the  Athanasian  Creed,  seek  to  explain  away 
the  limits  of  their  own  comprehension.  But 
for  the  Christian  the  explanation  is  very  simple, 
and  is  to  be  found  in  two  simple  and  self- 
evident  facts.  One  is  in  the  axiom  that  the 
part  is  not  greater  than  the  whole — that  the 
infinite  cannot  be  embraced  in  the  finite  ;  and 
the  other  is  in  the  relativity  of  language.  And 
since  it  is  only  through  the  medium  of  language 
that  apprehension  can  in  any  measure  be 
granted  to  mankind  of  the  truth  which  God  has 
deposited  in  His  Church,  with  the  promise  that 
it  shall  abide  in  her  always,  one  cannot  but 
believe  that  man’s  apprehension  of  this  truth 
would  be  quickened  by  a  revision  of  the 
definitions  with  which  it  is  clothed. 

For  just  as  truth  is  ever  the  same,  man’s 
apprehension  of  truth  develops  and  grows. 
And  in  the  de  fide  teaching  of  Rome  herself, 
there  is  nothing  to  stand  in  the  way  of  such 
revision  ;  indeed,  it  is  expressly  laid  down 
that  a  Pope  has  power  actually  to  alter  what 
another  Pope,  among  his  predecessors,  has 
decreed — as  Cardinal  Mercier  lately  explained 
to  his  flock,  in  his  pastoral  letter  to  his  diocese, 


ENGLAND'S  REAWAKENING  83 


on  his  return  from  the  election  of  Pope 
Pius  XI. 

Just  imagine  what  it  would  mean  to  Christen¬ 
dom  if  His  Holiness  the  present  Pope  should  see 
fit  to  take  the  courageous  step  of  summoning 
a  conference  to  discuss  the  possibility  of  such 
a  revision,  and  invite  the  Anglican  bishops  to 
take  part  in  it ;  and  it  is  clearly  within  his 
power  and  his  province  to  do  so.  It  is  hard 
to  see,  since  neither  side  would  be  committed 
to  anything  in  advance,  why  such  a  step 
should  be  deemed  in  any  quarter  to  be 
prejudicial.  Certain  it  is  that  the  prayers  of 
the  faithful  would  whole-heartedly  go  out  to 
it  :  and  consider  for  a  moment  what  that 
would  mean  in  itself.  A  world-wide  inter¬ 
cession  for  this  one  great  purpose ;  every 
Catholic  Church  in  Christendom,  at  the  same 
time  and  with  the  same  intention,  offering 
up  their  prayers  at  the  one  great  sacrifice  ; 
all  Christendom  joined  together  in  a  unity 
of  prayer  that  they  soon  should  be  joined 
in  a  unity  of  doctrine  !  Are  we,  indeed,  of 
so  little  faith — we  who  profess  belief  in  the 
efficacy  of  prayer — as  to  prejudge  the  issue, 


84  ENGLAND'S  REAWAKENING 


and  insinuate  in  our  hearts  that  God,  to 
whom  all  things  are  possible,  would  find  it 
impossible  to  answer  this  prayer  ? 

But,  to  look  on  the  brighter  side  of  the 
picture,  suppose  in  God’s  good  providence  this 
petition  were  granted,  the  vista  unveiled  so 
transcends  human  language  that  mere  words 
seem  unworthy  to  convey  it  significance. 
One  great  universal  reunited  Church ;  one 
great  international  Moral  Tribunal ;  one  Faith, 
one  Lord,  one  Baptism  for  all ;  one  ever- 
living  voice  of  authority,  explaining  and  ex¬ 
pounding  God’s  purposes  with  regard  to  the 
destinies  of  mankind  ! 

But  is  all  this  merely  a  pretty  picture,  an 
idealist  vision,  a  theorist’s  dream,  which,  even 
if  it  actually  saw  the  light  of  accomplishment , 
would  be  quite  out  of  touch  with  the  practical 
needs  of  a  material  world  ?  Or  is  it  something 
which,  by  binding  men  together  in  a  close 
corporate  fellowship,  by  demonstrating  the 
spiritual  and  practical  significance  of  those 
three  great  Catholic  virtues  which,  after  faith, 
the  world  stands  perhaps  in  most  sore  need 
of  to-day — the  virtues  of  charity,  humility, 


ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING  85 


simplicity — would  contribute  very  really  to 
that  peace  on  earth  and  good-will  towards 
man  which,  by  leagues  of  nations  here  and 
conferences  there,  all  statesmen  are  striving 
so  earnestly  to  attain  ?  It  is  clearly  im¬ 
possible  to  argue  the  matter  :  each  in  his  own 
conscience  must  find  his  own  answer. 

Yet,  to  those  who  understand  it,  the  Catholic 
Faith  is  pre-eminently  practical ;  and  since  its 
practical  fruits  are  so  much  the  same,  whether 
the  Catholicism  be  labelled  Roman  or  Anglican, 
surely  the  Tree  of  Life  which  breathes  through¬ 
out  the  great  Church  Catholic  would  make  a 
much  deeper  and  wider  appeal ;  surely  man¬ 
kind  would  more  readily  partake  of  those 
fruits  if  it  ceased  to  be  at  conflict  in  its  various 
branches. 

And  what,  after  all,  are  those  fruits  ?  We 
have  talked  such  a  deal  about  the  truths  of 
Catholicism  that  perhaps  it  would  not  be  out 
of  place  to  conclude  these  reflections  with  a 
brief  consideration  of  their  meaning  in  practice. 
As  the  rules  of  perspective  are  to  the  artist, 
so  these  truths  are  to  the  Catholic,  for  they 
teach  him  to  gauge  everything  which  happens 


86  ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING 


within  the  world  by  some  positive  standard 
which  exists  outside  the  world ;  to  weigh 
everything  that  happens  and  compare  it 
to  that  standard,  and  consider  why  and  in 
what  direction  it  is  not  conformable  to  that 
standard.  They  teach  him  to  separate  the 
sin  from  the  sinner  :  to  love  the  sinner  while 
loathing  his  sin.  They  make  him  seek  after 
charity,  humility,  simplicity.  And  they  do 
more  even  than  that  :  they  teach  the  true 
meaning  of  words  such  as  these,  showing  as 
a  signpost,  what,  by  long  desuetude,  is 
daily  in  danger  of  degenerating  into  a  shib¬ 
boleth. 

Take  charity  first.  We  forget,  I  am  afraid, 
the  sounding  brass  and  tinkling  cymbal, 
as  we  mouth  the  word,  and  put  our  hand  in 
our  pocket  ;  for  charity  is  not  a  self-righteous 
patronage.  Neither  is  charity  being  so  senti¬ 
mental  in  forgiving  our  neighbour  his  sin  that, 
in  order  to  show  there  is  no  ill-feeling,  we  join 
with  him  in  committing  it  again.  Charity  is 
separating  the  sin  from  the  sinner  :  loving  the 
sinner,  and  yet  at  the  same  time  loathing  his 
sin.  We  are  told  to  love  our  neighbour,  but 


ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING  87 


we  are  also  told  to  eschew  unrighteousness. 
Are  we,  then,  not  to  condemn  the  sin  just 
because  our  neighbour  happens  to  commit  it  ? 
If  we  commit  it  ourselves  (as  we  probably  do), 
if  the  whole  world  commits  it,  the  sin  is  still 
just  as  much  of  a  sin.  We  all  sin,  and  most 
of  us  repent  ;  is  it,  then,  really  inconsistent  to 
go  on  loving  our  neighbour  because  he  also 
sins  and  repents  ?  Or  is  it  uncharitable  to 
condemn  the  sin  because  this  time  it  is  our 
neighbour  who  happens  to  commit  it  ? 

The  injunction  to  judge  not  that  we  be  not 
judged  refers  to  the  sinner,  not  to  the  sin  : 
for  our  neighbour  is  of  God,  his  sin  of  the 
devil.  Charity  is  love — love  of  God,  and  love 
of  our  neighbour  ;  but  you  cannot  have  any¬ 
thing  without  its  converse  :  you  cannot  pos¬ 
sibly  have  love  of  God  unless  you  have  also 
hatred  of  evil.  Human  love  is  but  a  corollary 
of  divine  love,  and  love  of  our  neighbour  is 
not  necessarily  inconsistent  with  a  loathing  of 
the  sin  which  our  neighbour  commits.  Charity 
is  a  mystical  sense  of  proportion  ;  and  this, 
if  rightly  understood,  is  the  whole  meaning  of 
the  Church’s  marriage  laws.  And  the  fact 


88  ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING 


that  being  evil  we  try  to  be  good,  and  never 
succeed,  is  the  whole  paradox  of  Catholic 
mysticism. 

Then  humility.  Its  perversion  is  illus¬ 
trated  in  Uriah  Heap.  Its  truest  explanation, 
I  think,  is  seen  in  the  expression,  “  bowing  to 
authority/’  Man  is  by  nature  an  egotistical 
animal,  and  that  egotism  is  most  apparent  in 
what  has  been  termed  the  snobbery  of  the 
intellect.  To  the  average  man,  by  far  the 
hardest  sacrifice,  as  a  rule,  is  the  sacrifice  of 
his  private  opinion  ;  for  opinion  is  the  fruit  of 
the  intellect. 

In  secular  matters  opinion  is  to  some  extent 
regulated  by  law  and  convention.  In  countries 
such  as  England  and  France  certain  ebullitions 
of  conduct  or  conversation  are  penalised  very 
definitely  by  the  law  of  the  land.  In  any 
club,  or  social  group,  certain  contraventions  in 
speech  or  behaviour  of  the  established  usage 
are  penalised  by  social  ostracism.  But  in 
religious  matters  alone,  it  would  seem,  opinion 
is  accorded  the  latitude  of  licence.  And 
consequently,  in  matters  religious,  man’s 
natural  egotism  finds  its  outlet. 


ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING  89 


Man’s  intellect  can  evolve  anything  it  likes, 
and  there  is  no  limit  to  the  lengths  it  may  go. 
The  God  who  created  the  intellect,  the  intellect 
frequently  creates  for  itself.  Private  judg¬ 
ment  walks  through  the  streets  unbridled — 
sincere,  honest,  conscientious,  no  doubt,  but 
lacking  all  approach  to  humility.  For  true 
humility  suspends  private  judgment  and, 
making  the  supreme  sacrifice  of  egotism,  lays 
it  on  the  altar  of  the  Church’s  tribunal,  crying 
with  Tertullian  :  “I  believe,  because  it  is 
impossible  ” — or  interpreted  in  more  modern 
language  :  “I  can’t  quite  understand  it  yet, 
but  I  am  young,  and  the  Church  is  old,  so 
probably  the  Church  knows  better  than  I  do.” 
That,  for  members  of  the  Catholic  Church,  is 
what  humility  means  to  a  man. 

And  lastly,  simplicity.  Catholics  are  fre¬ 
quently  attacked  on  the  ground  that  they 
have  departed  from  the  simplicity  of  the  primi¬ 
tive  Church,  and  lost  themselves  in  a  jungle 
of  dogma.  It  altogether  depends  on  what 
one  means  by  simplicity;  it  also  depends  on 
what  one  means  by  dogma.  People  are  saying 
everywhere  to-day,  “  Oh,  do  let’s  be  simple, 


90  ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING 


we  are  tired  of  dogma  !  ”  as  though  there  were 
a  feud  between  the  two.  They  do  not  say, 
“  Oh,  do  let’s  drink,  we  are  so  thirsty — but 
for  Heaven’s  sake  let  us  abolish  glasses  !  ”  The 
very  extolling  of  simplicity  is  an  expression  of 
dogma — the  great  dogma  that  simplicity  is 
good.  Every  opinion  we  express  on  religion 
at  all  is  a  dogma,  and  when  accepted  by  the 
consensus  of  universal  opinion,  as  approved  by 
authority,  it  ceases  to  be  a  dogma  and  becomes 
a  doctrine. 

It  is  just  as  dogmatic  to  say  the  Church  is 
wrong,  as  it  is  dogmatic  to  say  the  Church  is 
right.  That  there  is  no  God  is  a  doctrine 
of  Atheism  ;  that  it  is  the  fool  who  saith  in 
his  heart,  There  is  no  God,  is  a  doctrine  of 
Christianity. 

S.  Francis  of  Assisi  was  dogmatic  enough, 
yet  he  was  so  naive  and  so  simple  in  his  daily 
life  that  many  a  Protestant  delights  to  read 
of  him.  We  are  told  that  he  heard  Mass  when 
he  could,  and  made  his  confession  ;  he  sang 
with  the  birds,  and  babbled  with  the  brooks, 
and  called  the  trees  and  the  beasts  his  brothers 
and  sisters,  and  looked  on  all  nature  as  one 


ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING  91 


family  in  God — "  Brother  Sun,  Sister  Moon, 
Brother  Wind  and  Sister  Water.”  I  do  not 
think  anyone  will  deny  that  this  was  simple, 
though  the  Moderns  may  say  that  it  was  the 
act  of  a  simpleton  ! 

But  just  as  we  have  lost  the  meaning  of 
dogma,  so  we  have  lost  the  meaning  of  sim¬ 
plicity.  If  a  man  wants  to  lead  the  simple  life 
to-day  he  thinks  he  must  feed  exclusively  on 
carrots.  If  he  does,  it  is  perhaps  an  appropriate 
diet  for  him  ;  for  he  does  not  see  that  it  is 
much  less  simple  to  scour  the  country  in  search 
of  carrots  when  carrots  art  out  of  season, 
than  to  eat  meat  when  meat  comes  along,  and 
drink  wine  when  wine  comes  along,  and  thank 
the  good  God  who  gave  them  both.  That  is 
far  more  simple,  and  just  as  dogmatic  ;  simple 
because  he  does  not  worry  about  them,  he  just 
enjo}7s  them ;  and  dogmatic  because  it  is 
clearly  impossible  to  give  thanks  to  God  with¬ 
out  first  of  all  a  very  dogmatic  insistence  that 
there  is  such  a  Being  as  God  to  be  thanked. 

This,  and  very  much  more  than  this,  is 
something  of  the  influence  which  the  Catholic 
Faith,  in  its  practical  application  to  the  daily 


92  ENGLAND’S  REAWAKENING 


life,  exercises  upon  one’s  attitude  of  mind. 
The  same  for  Romans,  the  same  for  Anglicans, 
and  the  same  for  members  of  the  Orthodox 
Church.  For  Catholicism  is  universal,  and  can 
no  more  be  confined  to  the  jurisdiction  of 
Canterbury  than  it  can  be  confined  to  the 
jurisdiction  of  Rome.  Far  be  it  from  Anglicans 
to  presume  to  claim,  as  Rome,  I  believe,  still 
attempts  to  do,  that  true  Catholicism  must 
exclusively  be  confined  within  the  limits  of 
their  own  dioceses.  And  I  do  not  think  that 
the  Anglican  cause  will  suffer  because  her 
spirit  in  this  respect  is  more  Catholic.  Let 
Anglicans,  then,  continue  to  foster  that  spirit, 
and  fortified  by  the  prayers  of  the  faithful, 
do  all  in  their  power  to  further  reunion. 

Anglo-Catholicism  has  a  great  history  and 
a  great  heritage,  and  I  have  attempted  to  say 
something  about  them  both  ;  yet  if  I  were  asked 
to  define  Anglo-Catholicism,  precisely,  I  do 
not  think  I  could  do  it.  If  I  were  asked  to  say 
roughly  what  it  is,  I  think  I  should  say  (and  it 
only  repeats  and  epitomises  the  foregoing 
pages,  if  I  say  so  now)  that  it  is  the  Catholic 
Faith,  uncorrupted  by  Rome,  which  existed 


ENGLAND'S  REAWAKENING  93 


in  this  country  for  centuries  before  the  re¬ 
verberations  of  the  continental  Reformation, 
the  tyranny  of  a  Roman  Catholic  queen,  and 
the  instability  caused  by  political  vicissitudes, 
nearly  succeeded,  but,  thank  God  !  not  quite, 
in  consigning  it  for  ever  to  the  limbo  of 
lost  things.  I  should  say  that  Catholicism  is 
the  spiritual  democracy  of  the  ignorant  ; 
Christ  in  His  Church  is  the  Good  Shepherd  who 
supplies  their  wants ;  and  the  very  best 
Catholic  is  a  very  bad  Christian — saved  only 
by  the  faith  that  is  born  of  humility.  In  the 
words  of  the  old  Scottish  song  :  “He  prays 
that  the  faith  of  the  dying  thief  may  be 
granted  through  grace  unto  him." 


THE  END 


PRINTED  BY  THE  ANCHOR  PRESS,  LTD.,  TIPTREE,  ESSEX,  ENGLAND. 


Date  Due 

Jg 

4 

PRINTED 

IN  U.  S.  A. 

